Re: [Ntp] Antw: Re: Antw: Re: Calls for Adoption -- NTP Extension Field drafts -- Four separate drafts

Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> Tue, 10 September 2019 06:25 UTC

Return-Path: <watsonbladd@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 2DC84120880 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 23:25:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 Votp80ZwjlGr for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 23:24:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12e.google.com (mail-lf1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12e]) (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 EF9F3120875 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 23:24:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id q27so12459021lfo.10 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 23:24:58 -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=OcjyPi7fvlzM3yUdQ/o5pCdSLh58QvOk1FMULXbpDq4=; b=Q5RnC3vN6FmqAASbmvGFjYP2U5UUrklqPSWYVwzDsVl0DejnPxNfJWD/t5XxkTxk0R ooJ3MsJr03WyWTZyNX1zgA3LsNlhBp4wFfBeu/JZlSYCSSDcKGwzE1GSbcrJbJVLjaaE 3eP3UPw5AMYE2SRBEB7pbIqEmnfFUzrOm4+BTBdhN/XRhy1RX8ox8pCT3RjlGRzacaEC Kg/uMfj8cyagORHVH91bEoHq7idyiKzlSianGB/K1c19o426NXqCfDrddZTKkmo5WtfS wSUO1xkDIn7dbdOt9bYrWgwMOwvgoQM77/BDhDPxsxJ0q9E4sRoJYQY+lEVjhrTEwyQQ CSsA==
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=OcjyPi7fvlzM3yUdQ/o5pCdSLh58QvOk1FMULXbpDq4=; b=GzliergZHyDw6/C6nciRavF7LHYQw+Dwa7IZ9adbfV2lMlc4GVVEfi1c+EIMGt7Qh1 vHUl+0FManeRB7INsQRSruG84d4BMayMA/R+BmFgegE+vL1J7yYSyuHEYTL5qPyALib7 ctBxwIYdSII3dAE1ZqHCSciWYoJMu36OHxwkXYQmMZw7yzCW36CMMcqcpZN+lyitiiBm XYTjEqTiRZkfmK+bVrxeRZeKaLoT3+owiyTQ8i92G2GE8FA+Kt0a0fxJTMqKAphTaBb9 VYR0S+/IsizaXXeVQ1OVJAzSpBRRlSbAHmeRrvDkRxaW9u873rBsPGAukZ/RAAIUi9Ob FFMQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX0bi6haqzKa8/i+R8RqkdwyHM/8kJRdKNKBchSoUvqvojkSviU +g+fqHm7IL0Q4tnwUOFKA5iBB8+CfLU2e4W/3EU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzl8HZ27u5q+1gO8H9LOoqgdTBqLFW3kJ1xKpopTZ6AggHFX/uIbpJD5FsHcEffMWAFbTXlsb66dcMZKP4zQWY=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:562c:: with SMTP id b12mr19506074lff.156.1568096697056; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 23:24:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1B4A56E7-16A6-4767-9268-BCF4BEB9A247@isoc.org> <BCA949D7-7D92-43A9-9766-573559A9FC70@meinberg.de> <5D66392D020000A100033273@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <8F6BAF5F-CC7B-47B9-90FD-BD20D6ABE845@meinberg.de> <20190828103752.GI24761@localhost> <3f4b55ca-02d9-a470-229b-40860866efbf@nwtime.org> <20190828111458.GJ24761@localhost> <e50112dd-f918-1135-74c8-a738ecb70b70@nwtime.org> <55867E75-9813-466B-8E57-0E157DE5AEB9@meinberg.de> <d308b5d4-3d6e-981b-3dfc-9d5938bad78d@rubidium.se> <252618a3-d2fb-d5b1-baa4-72b16ef0f845@nwtime.org> <e5b16adb-eddb-fadd-4940-9d97685a36e4@rubidium.se> <6ccb0e56-8bf7-8625-4ee3-2cde6df11681@nwtime.org> <5104A844-93BE-4C8E-8EBC-23D1E656DDE3@akamai.com> <CAJm83bDxUZx9Ea9TOSBDh=MjrM4iG4iqmBQ3UVUQdo0EK0AM3A@mail.gmail.com> <5D773E75020000A1000339FF@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <5D773E75020000A1000339FF@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 23:24:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CACsn0cmBqaXqMam7Zi_LG=vW5mo4wgVHCSxi0dTUFQzH+ieo+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com>, "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>, stenn@nwtime.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009a030e05922cf6ff"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/cg9GHbBPkZIdK1haMLMEKutyAgI>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Antw: Re: Antw: Re: Calls for Adoption -- NTP Extension Field drafts -- Four separate drafts
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: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 06:25:01 -0000

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019, 11:11 PM Ulrich Windl <
Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:

> >>> Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com> schrieb am 09.09.2019 um 17:46 in
> Nachricht
> <CAJm83bDxUZx9Ea9TOSBDh=MjrM4iG4iqmBQ3UVUQdo0EK0AM3A@mail.gmail.com>om>:
> > On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 11:32 AM Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >    I continue to maintain that a response should be with a packet at
> the
> >>     highest version level we speak that does not exceed the version of
> the
> >>     incoming packet.
> >>
> >> I think this is a very interesting idea and deserves careful thought.
> >>
> >> Are there unique error codes in v3 and v4 that a v5 client could
> recognize
> > as "you're too modern for me" ?
> >
> > No, but we could always introduce a new KISS code. Asking a v4 server
> > to know how to respond to a v5 client with an error cognizable to the
> > client is reasonable. But what Harlan seems to be asking, which I
> > think is a terrible idea, is that v4 servers be able to respond
> > *successfully* to v5 clients by assuming that v5 header fields are no
> > different from v4 header fields, thus basically locking us into old
> > design decisions for eternity.
>
> Yes I think the RFC for NTPv5 should place clear rules to forbid that.
>

There are quite a few v3 clients that just look at the timestamp and ignore
the other fields.

Are there compelling reasons to change the wire format in v5 and not use
extensions/NTS?  If so we should do it if not we shouldn't but the wire
format is secondary.


> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ntp mailing list
> > ntp@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> ntp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
>