Re: [Ntp] Draft minimzation: did we get the modes wrong?
Watson Ladd <watson@cloudflare.com> Mon, 22 April 2019 20:45 UTC
Return-Path: <watson@cloudflare.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 5B8E01203A9 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cloudflare.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 bw13mB0c7cRD for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x733.google.com (mail-qk1-x733.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::733]) (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 38C5E120128 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x733.google.com with SMTP id p19so4914274qkm.10 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudflare.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kCeGwZRKI0IwJyF4PM9y1WKYOiVS+rVqIsmNF/U9b5c=; b=McwENZK/XmtmMbV8q7lHIgFogLIVuVfANAw8NyHG7EQrj3WX76qefhVUjS0oVbMCz8 Uv9H4qON4VY7kRpVumCzdR0WS4h0z5YGYN25O2zs7FO8CgeCPPvk7488eYBCJ/nrv+db KBYa0DuL5i72hhPrag83rVDypu7o7kmggT7LY=
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=kCeGwZRKI0IwJyF4PM9y1WKYOiVS+rVqIsmNF/U9b5c=; b=ZJTLV5qKySpAFZnFsRcuaJugEfmk3fSittnpByboO34ASoA+3lO3iEKFmdN2Awaj37 edmbSW3zX9y133AsQaCcLqj8mmvgANQhoToqHYQm6emImzfr6zWJlktTjddl9u2eEW0N HIxuZw89jnAD1HOo/WmBxsA89xhl/v0mUzXWWcOG1VNlkvVr8AR1gtgLyMIXHC6CLpIJ bZV0IV9CE+/pjebB4yFPH7BSP7zTxign18nOR2kM0Fd6/dMK+BKMtB0LeEeuJOIfttiN v+jO9kDAE7rHabmcDA6U4SK7c3ijyKxi6Vv172fkYPKwprHvpuu4JlstXmAuuWxrOvxR /vzg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX3vxSBCQ5LHIRZlmFErT8plVu01QIlAx8eEx3h0RYg3Q6TP/k/ SkA7l4nJQC1ZqbNt86hOItIzyddceVzvwcjpu3eACg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwEcFN9ic/w9bES9krPllhR2cToQqL2KIt5EFj9vTonzUMEBFWuqGH194w68TSELMMPh10ADvI/QqIA57HvO9Y=
X-Received: by 2002:ae9:e8c3:: with SMTP id a186mr7091118qkg.346.1555965898331; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAN2QdAEj4=gVXQrVXdU69x8QRzR3tFyLqadfFJZhDyPJNKL6WQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJm83bC_NKAYLqVA+FBRKcyx26O0t-e1fur_ON9ab4KaF7aNug@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJm83bC_NKAYLqVA+FBRKcyx26O0t-e1fur_ON9ab4KaF7aNug@mail.gmail.com>
From: Watson Ladd <watson@cloudflare.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:44:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CAN2QdAE1CvazkE6=Oc44c3HiN-O31VUi8Vn+QozUd1TZcek8FA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com>
Cc: NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/faH-M6p-1-U_9oFixg3bd_LH8cc>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Draft minimzation: did we get the modes wrong?
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: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 20:45:01 -0000
Errata 3126 did spot this. On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 1:37 PM Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com> wrote: > > Clients send mode 3, servers send mode 4. I see the sentence in RFC > 5905 you're referring to and it seems to be an error. It correctly > refers to client packets as mode 3 and server packets as mode 4 in > several other places, as do previous RFCs such as 4330. > > I'm a bit amazed that it's taken this long for anyone to spot this. > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 4:10 PM Watson Ladd > <watson=40cloudflare.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > > Dear list, > > Do clients send mode 3 packets or mode 4 packets? It seems this draft > > ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp-data-minimization-04) > > the NTP RFC disagree on this detail. > > Sincerely, > > Watson Ladd > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ntp mailing list > > ntp@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
- [Ntp] Draft minimzation: did we get the modes wro… Watson Ladd
- Re: [Ntp] Draft minimzation: did we get the modes… Daniel Franke
- Re: [Ntp] Draft minimzation: did we get the modes… Watson Ladd