Re: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: WGLC on draft‑ietf‑alternative‑port‑01

Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> Mon, 26 July 2021 10:06 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 928213A0744 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 03:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 I5fs8W3ocgVP for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 03:06:01 -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 5FAA93A073E for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 03:06:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1627293960; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=bfXZGNAk3MX9ou6K114i/wyxbPE9COedwGWBlMKtC1I=; b=EWVZzYLSn09PzoMIevlAfKgv70dYHTWRFvM0Tvjcpn6oH+sNJNuptrFHnD4j2tSZdlMKRH tFVt6UPvMB/f/se/1ZkMq6dN9cdybYfNe5YIMUpy4E+88sCZ7pU1qDr0DYBvOon1OxlFI+ g5XDsTiEnRk5Uo2ywsOixjCEVOavmmc=
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-482-o6aI9VtxPxWxUKSem4xJZQ-1; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 06:05:57 -0400
X-MC-Unique: o6aI9VtxPxWxUKSem4xJZQ-1
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E02989129F; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 10:05:55 +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 B7AA7175B8; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 10:05:51 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 12:05:50 +0200
From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
To: Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
Cc: mayer@pdmconsulting.net, Dieter Sibold <dsibold.ietf@gmail.com>, watsonbladd@gmail.com, "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <YP6I/mNKDReSKdxc@localhost>
References: <PH0PR06MB7061EF8C35B67CDE520E60F2C2349@PH0PR06MB7061.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <YNMbMd+3dDjAnIDP@localhost> <CACsn0cnMR=E13wd06+=Jdr++s5hqvSt7VitE8euUzc2dF_SjtQ@mail.gmail.com> <a39454b6-31b2-a8f5-1070-3d1b3c155297@pdmconsulting.net> <492BFE65-30FD-42AC-8891-B9A7D007BC03@gmail.com> <ac4aa859-7d26-17ba-a33b-dec781258b52@pdmconsulting.net> <YP562akF+CL/9R5s@localhost> <60FE8215020000A100042ABE@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <60FE8215020000A100042ABE@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14
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/WbrK6PZr3EaKI-A_VpasWV19xak>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] =?utf-8?b?QW50dzogW0VYVF0gUmU6ICBXR0xDIG9uIGRyYWZ04oCRaWV0?= =?utf-8?b?ZuKAkWFsdGVybmF0aXZl4oCRcG9ydOKAkTAx?=
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: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 10:06:07 -0000

On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:36:21AM +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> Actually I think removing mode 6 from the protocol is a bad idea:
> So (assuming there is a need for monitoring and dynamic configuration) every
> implementer will do his/her own protocol.

Why would monitoring and/or configuration have to run on port 123?
That is something completely different than exchanging timestamps for
synchronization of clocks.

There can be a standard protocol for monitoring and configuring, maybe
specific to NTP, but not specific to an NTP implementation (unlike
mode 6).

> As a matter of fact crony does not document the internal protocol being used.

Right, it's not documented. Similarly to mode 6, it is tightly tied to
an implementation. It could be replaced with a standard protocol, if
there was one that covered all the state and configuration.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar