Re: [Ntp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields

[Hal Murray <[e-mail]>]

[e-mail] said:
> Re "declaring" what is supported, you're saying you are supporting:
>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stenn-ntp-i-do-04
> right? 

No.  I was thinking of something much simpler.  Maybe a note on the web page 
describing the NTP server, next to the place where it says it does/doesn't do 
leap smearing.

I'm not sure that "what is supported" captures the spirit of what I was 
suggesting.  I was trying to describe something that wasn't supported.  You 
may be able to turn that inside out with some good wordsmithing.


> I think everything else in this thread is clearly and fully covered in the
> (updated):
>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields-07 

I find section 4 hard to read.  There are huge chunks of old/new text with no 
summary of what is changing.

The minimum length of 16 bytes has been changed to 8.  I still don't 
understand why an EF needs any payload at all.

It still describes the 16 bit extension-type field as 2 flag bits, one for 
query/response, and another that is deprecated.  Is there an EF type for MAC?  
Is that a query or response?


The link behind "NEW: 'RFC5905 Section 7.5.1 - Extension Fields and MACs'" in 
the Table of Contents doesn't work.  (It's a new section.  There is no place 
to link to.  I think the link should be removed.)

There are no links to sections 4.2 or 4.3 from the Table of Contents.



-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.