Re: [Ntp] draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds - WGLC comment resolution

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

All,
     This is my proposed -06 version to address the changes proposed
below as well as the changes suggested after I sent the below note.

http://www.innovationslab.net/~brian/draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-06.txt

Regards,
Brian

On 6/26/18 2:18 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
> All,
>      First, I want to thank those who provided feedback on the mode 6
> commands draft during the last call period. Rather than do a
> blow-by-blow response to those comments, I am going to list out my
> proposed changes to address the comments provided.
> 
>      *If you are not satisfied that your comments were not addressed,
> please respond to the list.*
> 
> 1. I will clarify the limitations on the packet size and the references
> to fields within the packet. This should help with readability and
> comprehension.
> 
> 2. The goal of this draft is to resurrect the mode 6 commands from the
> now-deprecated RFC 1305. Other than the addition of some new commands,
> this document is not meant to enhance the definition of or encourage the
> implementation of mode 6 commands. Rather, it provides a stable
> reference for those implementations that still support mode 6 commands.
> That is why it is an Informational document rather than a Standards
> Track one. The abstract and the introduction will be enhanced to make
> this point clear to the reader upfront.
> 
> 3. Several people asked about when should mode 6 commands be accepted
> and from who. I will add text to the Security Considerations section to
> recommend restricting access to this facility to just those trusted
> devices within your network. I will also see what text might make sense
> for amplification-type attacks.
> 
> I will wait a week or so before publishing a revision with the above
> proposed changes.
> 
> Regards,
> Brian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
>