IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model-10.txt> (A YANG Data Model for NTP) to Proposed Standard

Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> Mon, 15 February 2021 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <hmurray@megapathdsl.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 A3F183A0B83; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 06:34:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.619
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=3.243, PDS_RDNS_DYNAMIC_FP=0.01, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.363, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 GW6XclRL4K14; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 06:34:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net [64.139.1.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 822133A0B41; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 06:34:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shuksan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23E0640605C; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 06:34:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.3
To: tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>
cc: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>, Ankit Kumar Sinha <ankit.ietf@gmail.com>, last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model@ietf.org, ek.ietf@gmail.com, Dieter Sibold <dsibold.ietf@gmail.com>, ntp-chairs@ietf.org
From: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com> of "Mon, 15 Feb 2021 11:55:10 GMT." <602A611E.4020306@btconnect.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 06:34:10 -0800
Message-Id: <20210215143410.23E0640605C@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/KaKRVzKrUEYIN87DN8eCVsVHX08>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model-10.txt> (A YANG Data Model for NTP) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <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: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 14:34:13 -0000

daedulus@btconnect.com said:
> leaf poll is indeed poll in section 7.3 but I wonder why 13.1 uses hpoll?
> Probably a comment on the RFC and not on the I-D. 

There  is a slot in the header of NTP packets called poll.

There are 2 "poll" slots in the peer struct that a host uses to keep track of 
the info associated with a server it is talking to.
  hpoll is this hosts polling interval when querying that server.
  ppoll is that servers polling interval (as reported in the last packet from 
that server)

Section 7.3 is Packet Header Variables
Section 13.1 is Poll Process Variables (aka the stuff in the struct)



-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.

v2.15.0 | Report a Bug | By Email