Re: [Ntp] "Extensions" vs. "Extension Fields"
Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com> Thu, 17 September 2020 15:23 UTC
Return-Path: <dfoxfranke@gmail.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 AC2B83A0CE7 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 08:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 lmA2kBHaMyZQ for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 08:23:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x12f.google.com (mail-il1-x12f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49C083A0CE6 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 08:23:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x12f.google.com with SMTP id a19so2641573ilq.10 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 08:23:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=s2srxo/4uTTLfveVtDAO+Eb6jGVUaTZE6TrXg+tST+M=; b=S3mUSO5ub1BgS1zwuMBuQZnWW8WhqNzlXifnSuLyJGCBbXU285W+tRF3c9CahCyfVL t+E4SXKlrAQGMEvDWWOfFgchGq11HJfcI97gggbEpNs5/B4t9SRoJmmLcS7JzrD4pSGH FO5G3VWFpIHi/REZ7YpM1FmIctdtJ5jAgA3fznCKmijLKC8ASMXv4bgCpvQJVg3AWaQ9 ecqR3HuSoGUQ0ereVCcO2k4qPtU8yQdvDhmYBk2ek4gpliubTF6yEI+fS15zCkeYvHQ1 cMn6PLchjlQgoVpdx6s1g3pYmEC+fQGXnrQ8EW76A6SlIRBR0ncouLO/7tP8bRFBDR1s vmmQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=s2srxo/4uTTLfveVtDAO+Eb6jGVUaTZE6TrXg+tST+M=; b=q9RQykcV6flgezQVwigtV9qE5KqkdcRl6TJ0lBsI5wX+ynLppQIs4NNTVbCZaMxIYf HY0TUSFidmkb2t/C6jz8f+UppOY1cTTl3HY2QfXApTqloHpYoaGwG/veB+edaab/TXpp GSven9vRL1/TSHLrr8+ctHwGMK2bDpUPQJy2UmsXmalwEVKPu741cIYzhxdSSY9KhidZ UwMcxzqHzEz7G7UGwmtxK2ioyRoZWd0VrNb8Ti4N3f12uRw3vNajR5qVjavdYrVWJVtY fjU/I1Yr1lfLdBJUKvFNP18iFoJQiUfQJfc0HHK089PYV8AwpAqsFK39e7NHUYHOOp9q DI+A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533KuBP2G//zSKydC3moMp925G9/KNfPzdyjxRo/uySDqdWB3nvF xs7p656KFWQH9t8hEyP+eI6wmXQM8jAO/SxxX9Y=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw+i6SX/t7bgay4sqtD/VHF9a+CmWlJu+e69LXRthnObQxpJbQt2bCrMu4tzETlVSLN5iDfE87+Z0XI3cx2FTs=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:eb0:: with SMTP id u16mr22525047ilj.291.1600356188228; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 08:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJm83bARMjKX5KzWSsS1d3hqSR52g9JveGv-Lw36cYcX_PCfCQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJm83bBtMcE2MwPVR0zms0pAaFEE12u+sXWx3c1pRid08iwUPQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJm83bBtMcE2MwPVR0zms0pAaFEE12u+sXWx3c1pRid08iwUPQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 11:22:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJm83bDLv=woxReko979JHsL6Ck0ng5cQcbZcOZntbLHO63C7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: mills@udel.edu, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>, "Danny Mayer (mayer@ntp.org)" <mayer@ntp.org>
Cc: NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/ZPIL87mIkxS24FnevPVJr3QZBo4>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] "Extensions" vs. "Extension Fields"
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <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: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:23:11 -0000
And furthermore my addresses for Jim, Jack, and William seem to be bouncing. Oh well, hoping they're still subscribed to this list. On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 11:20 AM Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com> wrote: > > The email expansions I used to address the RFC 5905 / 7822 authors > don't seem to be working. Resending with those authors' addresses > given directly. > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 11:12 AM Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dave, Jim, Jack, William, Tal, Danny: > > > > draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp has been reviewed by the RFC editor > > and is now in AUTH48. I want an opinion from the six of you before I > > respond to one of the proposed edits. > > > > The RFC editor has proposed to change several uses of "NTS Extensions" > > to "NTS Extension Fields". However, my usage of one vs. the other was > > deliberate. When I refer to "extension fields", I am speaking purely > > syntactically, i.e., discussing the bits on the wire. When I refer to > > "extensions", I'm referring to the whole semiotic package: not only to > > syntax of the fields but also to the protocol semantics and business > > logic that accompany them. > > > > What I want to know from you six, as the authors of RFC 5905 and 7822, > > is not so much whether you think it's a good idea to make this > > distinction, but whether you *already had this distinction in mind* at > > the time you wrote those documents. If any of you tell me that you've > > been thinking in those terms all along, then I'll take that as > > vindication and reply to the RFC editor accordingly. If none of you > > do, then I'll accept the edit and use "extension fields" everywhere, > > because my intent here was to follow existing terminology and not to > > coin anything new.
- [Ntp] "Extensions" vs. "Extension Fields" Daniel Franke
- Re: [Ntp] "Extensions" vs. "Extension Fields" Daniel Franke
- Re: [Ntp] "Extensions" vs. "Extension Fields" Daniel Franke
- Re: [Ntp] "Extensions" vs. "Extension Fields" Karen O'Donoghue
- Re: [Ntp] "Extensions" vs. "Extension Fields" Doug Arnold
- [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: "Extensions" vs. "Extension… Ulrich Windl