[Ntp] Antw: Re: Antw: Re: Antw: [EXT] A different NTPv5 design

[Ulrich Windl <[e-mail]>]

>>> Miroslav Lichvar <[e-mail]> schrieb am 30.04.2020 um 13:56 in
Nachricht <20200430115622.GB25085@localhost>:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 01:04:49PM +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote:

[...]
>> > Is 14 days not enough in advance? The timestamp could be in an
>> > extension field if it needs to be provided.
>> 
>> It sounds more like the minimum. I feel like it SHOULD be 30 days at
least.
> 
> There was a time (before RFC 5905) when ntpd announced it whole month
> before. That lead to the leap indicator getting stuck as there was no
> period where it should be unset. I'd rather not risk that happening
> again.

I was talking about an extension field that ol versions don't know of AND I
was proposing to add the time when the leap event is to occur...

[...]
> 
>> Will there be versions > 7 ever?
> 
> It could be, but it would need to be saved in a different field. 7
> would mean "go look elsewhere".

My proposal was to introduce the feature right now, having the version in two
locations in parallel, and in the future only in the new location. I'm assuming
we do NOT want to redesign the packet completely...

> 
> ‑‑ 
> Miroslav Lichvar