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

"Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> Mon, 02 September 2019 10:12 UTC

Return-Path: <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
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 86FE6120129 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 03:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 qqBV6chIhH4v for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 03:12:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.uni-regensburg.de (mx4.uni-regensburg.de [IPv6:2001:638:a05:137:165:0:4:4e7a]) (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 749E4120123 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 03:12:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 2FBE5600005B for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 12:12:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.5.51]) by mx4.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13EED600004E for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 12:12:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 02 Sep 2019 12:12:34 +0200
Message-Id: <5D6CEB11020000A10003342E@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 18.1.1
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 12:12:33 +0200
From: "Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
To: "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>,<mlichvar@redhat.com>
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> <20190902075944.GB15024@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20190902075944.GB15024@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/iyBsirhKaCJbxhofJF0LgcTmEYw>
Subject: [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: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 10:12:39 -0000

>>> Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> schrieb am 02.09.2019 um 09:59 in
Nachricht <20190902075944.GB15024@localhost>:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:30:33PM +0200, Magnus Danielson wrote:
>> I agree. If someone knocks on the door with v5 packets, reply in v5
>> form, if someone knocks on the door with v4 packets, reply in v4 form.
>> As people migrate to v5, they can start using all the benefits from it.
>> 
>> For loop‑protection, keeping a list of nodes from the source is a very
>> easy base condition to avoid routing loops, since as an announcement
>> comes in, if none of the nodes in the list is oneself, you may use it,
>> where as if any of the nodes is oneself, a loop is for sure detected.
> 
> NTP clients can be synchronized to multiple sources at the same time,
> so it's not just a list ‑ it's a graph. In any case, this probably
> requires a new extension field and it could work equally well in both
> NTPv4 and NTPv5. I was hoping the suggested‑refid EF could evolve in
> that.
> 
>> If I only had time to describe all the things I would do to enhance NTP,
>> it has a number of built‑in assumptions which is not useful or correct.
> 
> Well, maybe we could start with a list of issues of NTPv4 to get an
> idea of what needs to be fixed in NTPv5 (and what just needs a new
> extension field)? I have a few items. I think we could use the NTP WG
> wiki.

I think such a list would be a good idea. Maybe even before actually wortking
on NTPv5, that list could be distributed in two sub-lists:

* issues intended to be fixed in NTPv5
* issues not intended to be fixed in NTPv5

That would make a good abstract for NTPv5 anyway ;-)


Regards,
Ulrich