[Ntp] Antw: Re: New rev of the NTP port randomization I-D (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-ntp-port-randomization-01.txt)

"Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> Mon, 03 June 2019 05:56 UTC

Return-Path: <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
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 6C4E0120129 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 22:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 DVE4XeNDzdRe for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 22:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx3.uni-regensburg.de (mx3.uni-regensburg.de [194.94.157.148]) (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 CA88112006D for <ntp@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 22:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx3.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id E9E45600004F for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 07:56:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.5.51]) by mx3.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 936A66000050 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 07:56:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 07:56:04 +0200
Message-Id: <5CF4B673020000A10003195D@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 18.1.1
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 07:56:03 +0200
From: "Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
To: "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>,<stenn@nwtime.org>
References: <155841904754.12856.3727925672753047210.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9d21f083-4cba-1dd1-f5bb-c95984d3127b@si6networks.com> <9d74c6e3-244e-fdd7-184a-0572f4f144cd@ntp.org> <25275d68-8c18-1616-f226-dffe7e21091e@si6networks.com> <20190528174208.11253a67@rellim.com> <1a133133-5d6a-ca96-6c15-73e6933baffc@si6networks.com> <2794A95B-B118-40BD-AD60-DCB50CC32717@latt.net> <2107d74d-02da-cbd7-7a12-2837cb2e47a2@si6networks.com> <ced4c6d4-c34d-3460-eccc-b5608fbd340e@nwtime.org> <b4faacdf-3d9b-5e47-2415-276ef3d7f3af@si6networks.com> <69295233-497e-fa31-3270-691407fb6f30@nwtime.org> <15a5c387-8a44-5d7e-404b-e953a7a81737@si6networks.com> <f1b43a93-83cb-4a8a-1cbb-dcfda1e12943@pdmconsulting.net> <3ac96dec-e1ca-c0d0-1cda-7bb55c641a4c@si6networks.com> <5534f617-f15b-41f7-a89a-813afadb10f7@nwtime.org>
In-Reply-To: <5534f617-f15b-41f7-a89a-813afadb10f7@nwtime.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/NZiq91l8dGuVbRr_YgQWhdb6mek>
Subject: [Ntp] Antw: Re: New rev of the NTP port randomization I-D (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-ntp-port-randomization-01.txt)
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, 03 Jun 2019 05:56:11 -0000

>>> Harlan Stenn <stenn@nwtime.org> schrieb am 29.05.2019 um 19:15 in Nachricht
<5534f617-f15b-41f7-a89a-813afadb10f7@nwtime.org>rg>:

[...]
> If your point is to change the last sentence of RFC590 9.1 where it says:
> 
>    srcport: UDP port number of the server or reference clock.  This
>    becomes the destination port number in packets sent from this
>    association.  When operating in symmetric modes (1 and 2), this field
>    must contain the NTP port number PORT (123) assigned by the IANA.  In
>    other modes, it can contain any number consistent with local policy.
> 
> to:
> 
>    ... In other modes, it SHOULD contain any number consistent with
>    local policy.

As "local policy" is quit unspecific, I see no gain in using SHOULD. I'd even prefer MAY (to point out the level of uncertainty regarding port numers in this case).

> 
> I'm fine with that.
> 
[...]

Regards,
Ulrich