IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-08: (with COMMENT)

Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> Tue, 03 March 2020 14:05 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 D1E273A0B7F; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 06:05:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.035
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.035 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 ri_CyNUq0tQw; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 06:05:30 -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 163613A0B6E; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 06:05:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shuksan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1E5340605C; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 06:05:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.3
To: Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>
cc: Éric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>, ntp@ietf.org, Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, ntp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps@ietf.org, Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>, hmurray@megapathdsl.net
From: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> of "Tue, 03 Mar 2020 07:52:51 +0200." <CABUE3X=6=UkYxbj_U1ZzU=zkc53n5Zm2rqp3Gq53waUi=zP_BA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 06:05:17 -0800
Message-Id: <20200303140517.B1E5340605C@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/QxVz-OpttPrh_TGAcoa-WhtoX88>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-08: (with COMMENT)
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: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 14:05:36 -0000

tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com said:
> NEW: a timestamp is often used as part of a value that is unlikely to repeat
> (nonce) 

Is there a good reference for using time as a nonce?  I'd be happier if there 
was a hint that it's easy to get times to repeat if you don't have a TOY clock.


> NEW: The number of bits (or octets) used to represent the packet timestamp
> field.  If the timestamp is comprised of more than one field, the size of
> each field is specified. Network order (big endian) is assumed by default; if
> this is not the case then this section explicitly specifies the endianity. 

Are there any RFCs that use other than big-endian?  Introducing the 
opportunity for otherwise seems like unnecessary complexity as well as an 
invitation for interoperability troubles.


-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email