Re: [ntpwg] [TICTOC] WGLC on draft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer-01.txt (Was: WGLC on draft-mizrahi-ntp-checksum-trailer-02.txt)

[Danny Mayer <[e-mail]>]

On 6/30/2015 9:15 AM, Tal Mizrahi wrote:
> Hi Anil,
> 
> Thanks for the prompt response.
> 
>> I support this draft, But how about more Bit incorporating in field type, Tal let me know your view.
> 
> The checksum trailer draft requests IANA to allocate an extension field type.
> Note that:
> (1) In unauthenticated mode, the checksum trailer extension field is the last one.
> (2) In authenticated mode, the checksum trailer extension field is followed by the MAC / Autokey extension field.
> 
> The suggested M-bit in draft-choudharykumar-ntp-ntpv4-extended-extensions indicates whether the current extension field is the last or not.
> So once the checksum trailer draft has an allocated extension field type, its most significant bit will be fixed to either 0 or 1, but cannot cover both case (1) and case (2) above.
> 
> A possible way to resolve this is to have two types allocated in the checksum trailer draft, one for case (1), and another for case (2). The two types would be identical, except for the most significant bit. This would allow future compatibility with the M-bit, if adopted.
> 
> A question to the WG: do we want to provision for the potential adoption of the M-bit?
> 

No. It doesn't solve the problem for which they want it in a backward
compatible way.

Danny


_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
[e-mail]
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg