[Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: What is SNTP?
Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> Thu, 08 September 2022 07:29 UTC
Return-Path: <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
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 0B4AEC14F75F for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Sep 2022 00:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5oy20C7NdbAe for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Sep 2022 00:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.uni-regensburg.de (mx1.uni-regensburg.de [194.94.157.146]) (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 EEFFAC14F72B for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Sep 2022 00:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 6107A600004F for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Sep 2022 09:29:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.5.51]) by mx1.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D9E3600004D for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Sep 2022 09:29:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 08 Sep 2022 09:29:46 +0200
Message-Id: <631999E7020000A10004D81A@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 18.4.1
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2022 09:29:43 +0200
From: Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
To: halmurray@sonic.net
Cc: "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>
References: <46D23678020000F6FDA5B133@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <97335039020000805AEBDC6A@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <3E9FB4D402000050FDA5B133@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <3E9FB4D402000050FDA5B133@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/Za4uqu6Ld1FXL6Z-5b34ejIGHl0>
Subject: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: What is SNTP?
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 08 Sep 2022 07:29:56 -0000
>>> Hal Murray <halmurray@sonic.net> schrieb am 08.09.2022 um 00:07 in Nachricht <20220907220704.CCFE828C1D8@107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net>: > mayer@pdmconsulting.net said: >>> A list of the version 1 formats that are in use. >> What do you mean by version 1 formats? >> NTPv4 would be a minimum format. > > That's the whole point of that part of my message. > > There are a lot of SNTP clients out there in firmware that will never be > updated. Some/many of them are using version 1. Some of those are using > undocumented variants that worked when the code shipped. Users expect it to > > keep working so we have to support it. There is no RFC or anything else > that > describes what "it" is. > > I think we need to collect that information. It doesn't need to be in an > RFC. > Something more formal than an email message would be nice. I feel a rather strong objection: If there is code out that does violate the specs (considering using NTPv1 after year 2000 is a violation of specs), I see no point in considering such bad implementations for a future protocol revision. The best one could do IMHO is to write a "protocol gateway" that transforms bad requests to valid ones (also reducing the quality, but of those implementers actually would care, they'd fix the stuff I think). But that should be completely outside of any NTP specification. Compare it to clients using obsolete or incorrectly implemented crypto algorithms: Should servers take care of those, or should the simply block such connections? I'm not a fan of "incompatibility", but at some point in time you'll have to get rid of the old (specifically the incorrect) stuff. > > I agree that NTPv4 should be used by new SNTP clients. "A current version of NTP should be used by current SNTP clients", "current" meaning ">= 4" ;-) > > >> I very much doubt that today you can get the IETF to accept a draft unless >> there is some sort authentication mechanism. > > Is a reference to NTS good enough? Would it be "simple" enough for SNTP? Regards, Ulrich > > > ‑‑ > These are my opinions. I hate spam. > > > > _______________________________________________ > ntp mailing list > ntp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
- [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: What is SNTP? Ulrich Windl