IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] Should NTPv5 have QUIC bindings?

Danny Mayer <mayer@pdmconsulting.net> Thu, 21 October 2021 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <mayer@pdmconsulting.net>
X-Original-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEB2E3A0788 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 09:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fnlFU_y0fHLD for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 09:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chessie.everett.org (chessie.everett.org [66.220.13.234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE5FA3A0789 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 09:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.193] (pool-108-26-179-179.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [108.26.179.179]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by chessie.everett.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4HZsxy13mLzMNGT; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 16:14:46 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------Lmk98KIAXjakJlYv5TBGdM2C"
Message-ID: <c481fb20-14b4-028f-5618-ffffa7fee3ad@pdmconsulting.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 12:14:45 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: James <james.ietf@gmail.com>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>
References: <47298AF4-02EB-4955-930E-F74822943D82@akamai.com> <B8BC7140-0B84-447A-8DBE-43E367FD1611@gmail.com>
From: Danny Mayer <mayer@pdmconsulting.net>
In-Reply-To: <B8BC7140-0B84-447A-8DBE-43E367FD1611@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/KAmNrFotBRpv1IYBFp0kiXb2Eac>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Should NTPv5 have QUIC bindings?
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Time Protocol <ntp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ntp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ntp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 16:14:54 -0000

Can someone explain what QUIC is and what it's used for rather than 
having to go through a draft document?

Danny

On 10/21/21 11:50 AM, James wrote:
> I have considered looking at things like reusing elements of the 
> timestamp draft [1]  (really intended for measuring latency and not 
> time sync) and seeing if that along with some other signalling could 
> be useful. However, connection keep alive, congestion control and 
> other details would have to be considered. I’d be happy to help 
> explore this further but for the purposes of synchronisation it may be 
> education, but overall moot.
>
> - J
>
> 1: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huitema-quic-ts/
>
>> On 21 Oct 2021, at 17:45, Salz, Rich 
>> <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>> Curious to hear what people think.
>> _______________________________________________
>> ntp mailing list
>> ntp@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> ntp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email