IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] Should NTPv5 have QUIC bindings?

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Thu, 21 October 2021 19:38 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.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 5D8DB3A096F for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 12:38:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.452, 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.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 7PH91J9n-ejF for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 12:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA4793A0965 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 12:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0122332.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 19LI7UQH008142; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:38:45 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=Nzvr9E/7hYLiEMT9p+OIkNBJ5AyMc2lPzBi+IVikiRA=; b=kvc/lEzKJf7JCX5v7DQobjBrRG149ZwH0y9X3v0jw6hbiiywHLZvjNpL8oVgOA9EVzT6 l5txbyW/ZUDLAKp3MF7ZvNbECCqIYIv1zo0Wy2rsBHU6khIwCVwHUfJOkGBpMUjnPZ1g ph7l3HzceoYmT9SLYnbslhOUpIBqIkE2UgsabJENeAKpu0t9wfbEK64sTNtyNyRjH83J gf3PTcqOHVXchaEjslVZDvKOkbHbMQ+WbkuDuoDPRvEk9BsDAHLdGmvxn3WKyIa1QND7 1nNkwPHihEyQwwWEjRn9ei3qqP4QucbDUpH32QRAXSZFjSgRb7tJOEBHC+HRFuiLYAnD yw==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint5 (prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com [184.51.33.60] (may be forged)) by mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3bu3jbq2d4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:38:45 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 19LJb4iP002170; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 12:38:44 -0700
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.33]) by prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com with ESMTP id 3bt3bu3vyb-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 21 Oct 2021 12:38:44 -0700
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag1mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.23; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:38:43 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.023; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:38:43 -0400
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Hal Murray <halmurray+ietf@sonic.net>, "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ntp] Should NTPv5 have QUIC bindings?
Thread-Index: AQHXxrEXEPTEzC2WokKyeU6FPwWfxavd2R6A
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 19:38:42 +0000
Message-ID: <C5E01B24-E6A0-47AB-9933-FBC8C683DEA1@akamai.com>
References: <20211021192313.97F5128C0F3@107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net>
In-Reply-To: <20211021192313.97F5128C0F3@107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.54.21101001
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.27.164.43]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <70B64DC2E090BE418D2E24016F80A951@akamai.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.425, 18.0.790 definitions=2021-10-21_05:2021-10-21, 2021-10-21 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=870 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2109230001 definitions=main-2110210099
X-Proofpoint-GUID: Nic40b1fTK8QjEa8UKQtTJAoLc0pbdb3
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: Nic40b1fTK8QjEa8UKQtTJAoLc0pbdb3
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.182.1,Aquarius:18.0.790,Hydra:6.0.425,FMLib:17.0.607.475 definitions=2021-10-21_05,2021-10-21_02,2020-04-07_01
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 mlxlogscore=828 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2109230001 definitions=main-2110210099
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/iDtzd8qjHPsCLmltWQ9N2xrEXyk>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Should NTPv5 have QUIC bindings?
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Time Protocol <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: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 19:38:53 -0000

    >>    Curious to hear what people think.

    > What problem(s) do you think it will solve?

Nothing definitive which is why I asked.  The IETF is moving to QUIC for many things, so I'm curious.

>    Time transfer seems to be splitting into 2 areas.

Interesting thesis.

>    Do the QUIC APIs support something like SO_TIMESTAMP?

There's a draft proposal to add it: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-huitema-quic-ts-05.html is one place to find it.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email