Re: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: Quick review of WGLC for status change for draft‑ietf‑ntp‑update‑registries

[Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]>]

On 8/8/2022 3:51 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>>>> Miroslav Lichvar <[e-mail]> schrieb am 08.08.2022 um 11:23 in
> Nachricht <YvDWC27qKnODlD52@localhost>:
>> On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 02:00:21AM ‑0700, Harlan Stenn wrote:
>>> The problems I (and the NTP Project) have with this document include, but
>>> are not limited to:
>>>
>>> ‑ it uses far too many words to say far too little.  In other places it
> uses
>>> far too few words to say even less, except where it says nothing about
>>> various significant aspects of the registries.
>>
>> Which significant aspects of the registries are you referring to?
>>
>>> ‑ Table 1 is incomplete.  It does not include the value used by RFC 7821,
>>> and it frequently refers to values that are "reserved for historic
> reasons"
>>> without further explanation.  This leads me to:
>>
>> The Checksum Complement EF (0x2005) is present in the table 1, but it
>> is incorrectly described as "Reserved for historic reasons". That
>> should be changed to refer to RFC 7821. Only the Autokey‑related
>> entries should be "Reserved for historic reasons".
> 
> Maybe change to "Reserved for historic reasons (deprecated autokey V#)" where
> # is 1 or 2, most likely.

If a value is in the table, I would prefer the table says EXACTLY what 
that value is for, and where it is specified.

I still see no reason to reserve V1 entries in the V2 table, and I see 
reasons to specifically ONLY list valid V2 entries in the V2 table.

>>> ‑ The document does not describe (ignores?) 22 years of conscious design
>>> decisions around the two versions (revisions?) of extension field syntax,
>>> which Dave Mills and I have previous spent 3+ years' time and effort (10
>>> document revisions) in documenting, in draft‑stenn‑ntp‑extension‑fields.
>>
>> As was discussed when the draft was submitted, it was making changes
>> incompatible with RFC7822, e.g. decreasing the minimum EF length. We
>> can do that in NTPv5, but not in NTPv4.
>>
>> ‑‑
>> Miroslav Lichvar
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ntp mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp

-- 
Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]>
http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member!