IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] My thoughts on flags

Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> Tue, 23 July 2019 15:52 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 EBECA1202EC for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:52:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 6U7qTdQlO0aF for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AE39120343 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 383623DE1C; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:52:37 +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 89A5D61352; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:52:36 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 17:52:35 +0200
From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
To: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Cc: NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190723155235.GA1301@localhost>
References: <CACsn0c=KTv8KncL43Y_K-M5fe8vpNYSOAfYU6FD2VTtjDKNg_g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACsn0c=KTv8KncL43Y_K-M5fe8vpNYSOAfYU6FD2VTtjDKNg_g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.0 (2019-05-25)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.29]); Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:52:37 +0000 (UTC)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/fw2hRFUUhx-1nEcctGj7jUt-Tlc>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] My thoughts on flags
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, 23 Jul 2019 15:52:51 -0000

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 09:37:58PM -0700, Watson Ladd wrote:
> One of the items on the agenda that didn't really discussed was a
> number of drafts: draft-stenn-ntp-i-do-06,
> draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields-09,
> draft-stenn-ntp-leap-smear-refid-00. All of them are masterworks of
> repurposing fields, adding structure to hitherto unstructured
> identifiers, and other tricks beloved of
> 
> And none of them are necessary. Autokey should be dispenced with now
> that we have NTS. An NTS-KE exchange can easily be extended to include
> information about server features, and in event of changes a rejection
> of cookies can force a new NTS-KE exchange. This exchange can also
> include smeared time, which wouldn't be necessary if we represented
> timestamps in a format like MJD+seconds since midnight or somesuch
> (even UTC if properly understood).

What if someone wants to support a new extension field, but doesn't
want to support NTS(-KE)? Should TCP and TLS be requirements of
unrelated NTP extensions?

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email