IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-08.txt

Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> Wed, 26 February 2020 09:31 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 EF78B3A1170 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 01:31:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, 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 VK10POW048G0 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 01:31:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFE873A116C for <ntp@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 01:31:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1582709481; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=As0PQGoayRV5DBvAjDGRWMxCZTwy1j4HFGng2ePZoLc=; b=EDABbV1BGaok1q0kEgbrZHod6O5bfwYn3xnNK6Iysm+IeqExoQIlWRSLsCM4BnnTyD9P5r +SE9wZgSmc31VaSeHaQm/s+ctu8Bb99zxhx1EsjQX+4zvvimKbT9rpXylNzIJzPyWsIJbx Ra5PY8w2xOMQm6zUrokCJEi71UI0SBk=
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-167-N7_gz64KODOMlQGuSmJhfA-1; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 04:31:19 -0500
X-MC-Unique: N7_gz64KODOMlQGuSmJhfA-1
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C923C8010C7 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 09:31:15 +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 4D1AB90A00 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 09:31:14 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 10:31:13 +0100
From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
To: ntp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200226093113.GB12638@localhost>
References: <158255158510.5456.15093087067648315543@ietfa.amsl.com> <20200226074106.GD6766@localhost> <472fd21b-ebc6-946c-7be5-e6f38b49cd2a@tuwien.ac.at>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <472fd21b-ebc6-946c-7be5-e6f38b49cd2a@tuwien.ac.at>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/ZmLVCW_n0AZyIeC4NSWxPYjtRyo>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-08.txt
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: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 09:31:24 -0000

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 09:32:58AM +0100, Joachim Fabini wrote:
> Short history: we had an all-in-one document but concluded that it's
> worthwhile to split it into two. The timestamp draft focuses on the
...

> Does this make sense? Imo your and Doug's comment emphasize the
> importance of pushing forward the control field draft.

I think it does if the timestamp document will be useful on its own.
I now recall some of discussions around this split and I probably
don't have anything new to add there.

Thanks,

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email