From nobody Thu Dec  9 13:57:51 2021
Return-Path: <halmurray@sonic.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 251E33A106D
 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  9 Dec 2021 13:57:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
 SPF_NONE=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 v6BLXaOhoUcu for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>;
 Thu,  9 Dec 2021 13:57:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from c.mail.sonic.net (c.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.80])
 (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 B30563A106C
 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu,  9 Dec 2021 13:57:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net
 (107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [107.137.68.211])
 (authenticated bits=0)
 by c.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id 1B9LvkC6022556
 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT);
 Thu, 9 Dec 2021 13:57:46 -0800
Received: from hgm (localhost [IPv6:::1])
 by 107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id
 5385B28C1BF; Thu,  9 Dec 2021 13:57:46 -0800 (PST)
To: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
cc: ntp@ietf.org, Hal Murray <halmurray@sonic.net>
From: Hal Murray <halmurray@sonic.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
 of "Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:52:43 +0100." <YbHR69xnXYUR3NY3@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <161872.1639087066.1@hgm>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:57:46 -0800
Message-Id: <20211209215746.5385B28C1BF@107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net>
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVZMEzvOH6zkpMGSFNqr+bKiZ7hnLcFvAmnSCwydEKW8EORiDWd0kbJIMsotozBWaB0DXPWiLZ5jwtikqFrhzYaZUdZwodcWoEw=
X-Sonic-ID: C;bJMJCztZ7BGJKeSrSr5vsA== M;JIo8CztZ7BGJKeSrSr5vsA==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: -1.5/5.0 by cerberusd
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/PHNnxK0X50knEuiErA6UxZdW5po>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Shorter NTS packets?
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, 09 Dec 2021 21:57:49 -0000

How much of the problem will shorter packets solve?

NTS-KE includes a port number.  Can each server just pick
a local port?