Re: [Ntp] WGLC on draft-ietf-alternative-port-01

Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> Wed, 23 June 2021 11:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mlichvar@redhat.com>
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 8748C3A3473 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 04:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.995
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.995 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.198, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com
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 REWZUaparnF5 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 04:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (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 36A463A3471 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 04:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1624447798; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=o3cOKT6Tm2u1JQywaNL25N5EgfX68fd7ls1Ns0GoosY=; b=hEqjK1yB2DJWXbaGTYwxnbAGPmkS8H1njy+hW8CE7laCkKbbJpDfs28xjlzw/sC9Hx/len KuiXfiC7GXrJGoC+hAFXm89dm4yyoeQPJV+lTdYPgLNPXWa8H9+0WaOky14EhpEiQjCeYl XdPg64o4yBuTow+yoOBsofFCVuM5FWs=
Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-182-_TpVIDucPpSBgTPpo5FPjQ-1; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 07:29:56 -0400
X-MC-Unique: _TpVIDucPpSBgTPpo5FPjQ-1
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 495A581C85D for <ntp@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 11:29:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (holly.tpb.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com [10.43.134.11]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C59915D705 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 11:29:54 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 13:29:53 +0200
From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
To: ntp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <YNMbMd+3dDjAnIDP@localhost>
References: <PH0PR06MB7061EF8C35B67CDE520E60F2C2349@PH0PR06MB7061.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR06MB7061EF8C35B67CDE520E60F2C2349@PH0PR06MB7061.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15
Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=mlichvar@redhat.com
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/VFVKoOG_T99TjzDPAE_G-nn7WkM>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] WGLC on draft-ietf-alternative-port-01
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: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 11:30:05 -0000

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 01:36:03PM +0000, Karen O'Donoghue wrote:
> NTP Working Group,
> 
> This email starts a two week working group last call (WGLC) on
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-alternative-port/

One thing that I'd like to specifically ask everyone to consider
is the intended future of the alternative port. Do we expect NTP to
fully move there at some point and keep the port 123 only for legacy
implementations? Or should it always be just an alternative in case
the port 123 is not working?

The current version of the draft says the client SHOULD start with the
alternative port. If we don't want it to become the standard NTP port
in future, it might be better to start with 123.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar