Re: [Ntp] draft-ietf-ntp-roughtime-05: tag change makes implementation more complex

Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> Tue, 21 September 2021 03:43 UTC

Return-Path: <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
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 F00F43A1EEF for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 20:43:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 9Wy939ZAbYwI for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 20:43:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52c.google.com (mail-ed1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69D503A1EF3 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 20:43:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id j13so68941974edv.13 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 20:43:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=a/zWdAecDLTQj5YQvSXNSmWwRirvyYjnQ+b1a4yPFbI=; b=jEPzcz5VYpLv+GOo5aMEVFxAoMA7TZ2tXwU19XKXsnIg9E8/pzFEt2NT7i3IhyMYb2 6ja6h4yl7ur3Fj4/BIiAyNgg6J64x1+L+kzoxSuneTS31CPOjXgYx5aIi0HiQ2w7Jva1 Ke13De8xf3umir0IYulFj+tQ0ugDm15VIz9a1G14yflb5IzygdYRrQUflTxu3GPoNZzS Po89GjRt3XbFDXMm8/ptwpvdt9h6yXxYRDNpWhGq6GWB1qhid5uhAnI1DKFM8Ch7nXen QGMqNh36CXNeWNFBPESlzRj1VJNdgEFFikX0UKc+pQUjWAnKaQrUQAJbvYkcMS4bj4dl EcIQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=a/zWdAecDLTQj5YQvSXNSmWwRirvyYjnQ+b1a4yPFbI=; b=xt7HMd3q8kCLleKw2SqYc6oIpDPnsIP11ap7jTSV5ZrWCJjk5TXXcQDaPZOIxw26Bs X2kz3jQL2ux+sHTw/sJd5Vju5dx5niYNuH/FujJhl5xxzw7xFqR1/T5WnC5VEHgfVtFT DbSGbIo7a7xJL/Vh0NxxwXZLIpkQXEJxQxZ0dbSTSpnqV/9GiYakT4RUTKXY1UFqYePP lmDrzymTA4JtI2Wz+O/KPZXos+8Ylz7h/ZpWhtMwH/isqMw9EgLS5lYlBGtXtoL1RyIC GTu1FWDDH6l91wB0tIh69YT+CtS79rDBrRI7hpV5ChfOZEK0nhHUTvv3mlNGZyAXdSky 6NsA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53003iuJUgZLzNOdgsHaPtj6REGoJ/S90GK9bM42TwP3DH6M33PL p3H9DKJhim/Vl3vCZaPjA5p9LAe8ywDvFmOn/o4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxuKfC3otV8bSDWih6dKNHCCJTsJBgO4i3s/7ic+iwGRPHTkMM3MlJ9Rv13CyZJVuHlHOWMzrWXI+9oMGj6t3M=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:919:: with SMTP id i25mr31510121ejd.171.1632195817068; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 20:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAGZkp1-ZCuSvMyQyWCnE511O8-WL=OXfsTdraKsByMmWC3spVA@mail.gmail.com> <CACsn0ckZmR=k2NAmdyhVOA=V_XQ18AnBUBSTOu+bDXS1YsPpUg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGZkp18eASaF7qvubYpDgzvg643ZXuPwDs9qsiC1P_AVLcywLA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGZkp18eASaF7qvubYpDgzvg643ZXuPwDs9qsiC1P_AVLcywLA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 20:43:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CACsn0cnjHFwxHT13nMavRFzRteWJ=SORY8v4RCZjdjYP0H3oaw@mail.gmail.com>
To: JP Sugarbroad <taralx@gmail.com>
Cc: NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/MQqquvB6eYBlJ9L0gVp2GtdVlFc>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] draft-ietf-ntp-roughtime-05: tag change makes implementation more complex
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: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 03:43:44 -0000

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 8:32 PM JP Sugarbroad <taralx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Isn't the requirement to have tags in order?

Addition is commutative. And if PAD was at the end before, it wouldn't
be if we made a tag that was three letters long and started with three
letters after PAD. An implementation that assumed that would likely be
a problem.

Could you perhaps say more about why this is a barrier to your
implementation? It's easy enough for my coauthor and I to change them
back, but we'd like to know why.
>
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021, 19:56 Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 12:22 PM JP Sugarbroad <taralx@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > In the pre-ietf draft, short tags were padded with FF, putting them at the end of the tag sequence. Now they're padded with 00, which puts them at the start. So packets start with PAD rather than ending with it, noticeably complicating packet construction.
>>
>> Dear JP,
>>
>> I don't think this complicates packet construction much. If you know
>> the length of all elements ahead of time, and then compute the PAD,
>> nothing changes. If you are accumulating elements and putting PAD at
>> the end after knowing the length, it's a little bit of buffer
>> manipulation.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Watson Ladd
>>
>> >
>> > --
>> > JP Sugarbroad <taralx@gmail.com>
>> > "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
>> >     -- Unknown
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ntp mailing list
>> > ntp@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Astra mortemque praestare gradatim



-- 
Astra mortemque praestare gradatim