Re: [Ntp] NTP Extensions (was Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-22.txt> (Network Time Security for the Network Time Protocol) to Proposed Standard)

Daniel Franke <> Thu, 20 February 2020 04:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEC4D120143 for <>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 20:51:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O1Q4DjOnAXFz for <>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 20:51:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EB571200D6 for <>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 20:51:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id b15so22597733iln.3 for <>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 20:51:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TSAFc+jR6m/9dTgyo+Lmh9/k8bIaxDRZwcXT/jCBTKA=; b=VdIpsqjYcAg2CxmTH7ORLehoGRbyX9jULp5BRsn+C0hu1E3HDaCTDRQa54H2mYt1/7 vF2JlKBfdGDdUb7RCEAxSsIcNfD2vC4jzFzn6D6+jMcmkNqTuNHnOtCFtg04nzu6Yacu H59cffl8BMNP7Ce6s9EfQ9JTVCj+E1zlnFxVa2NvSrv7UdqxRFD4CQTLE1BsQParHDsR bvXntF+A4t4jm26rCjyt8swa23Ered7ioJy2eQJdwNDfyno3OW25pVKJCyy62OY5TsOt ZFp3y8as/BzTi4f39gtd2Zh9O8Rf5o8HpOr7HwmJtw4lhixPQE4chZAgjP7+ztXdfDgz w2WQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TSAFc+jR6m/9dTgyo+Lmh9/k8bIaxDRZwcXT/jCBTKA=; b=PYq12lppH/JeIF/nWlvbNSPhtNCmbNg2oiljuP1Aq67nHiySqUiRnG5AaUX9y7SLPa QNJiavUP87Cfhyj/kEjEIVxSUDFFfbjyuZU5X43lt1gNNlXL4nsGeT4SCAtQTo0dkCct NTQvJxiJq3QQGDdCu5TOsE5dL2JPxlqI/FXoQ+IHILuUKVHpK5+qOjHl5+YeLlsaBAEb XKjMlWpaaw3kh5/MVmjQG0mKyM/BDtPZhwnGw1p7OQldCyG8dSM7MFREexEBx/pyxKPZ dGrBJSBduJPVSXT4dgqhNcwQwiiwgEosd1fPFAcykaxliM7VwwNi6ZiwiN94wehLYUCq c+xw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXwPA2G+BlEQd8GcSE6w77vXDLdeiskAXrMID5FdnJdndUg9WKT TR4wiFt28ryKFveaA6sVKZ+ZJPXSg83SkBtVoLJ3zF8M
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwwXKVXG6CkbNgccVD0Eimg9+Yxe7XtdpKI2Pc2xXOeeEKWvDoVTw19y9jFINuxz2e1bF7SHdMGzqG6C12dDo8=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:8f44:: with SMTP id j65mr26791578ild.144.1582174267359; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 20:51:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Daniel Franke <>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 23:50:56 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: "Karen O'Donoghue" <>
Cc: NTP WG <>, Harlan Stenn <>, Watson Ladd <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] NTP Extensions (was Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-22.txt> (Network Time Security for the Network Time Protocol) to Proposed Standard)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 04:51:10 -0000

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 5:28 PM Karen O'Donoghue <> wrote:
> We can do two things:
> 1) Quickly come to consensus with the implementers, authors, and working group on an update to the IANA considerations text that we can add between IETF Last Call and the IESG vote.
> 2) Do nothing and let the IANA folks do what they will... (do you really want this to happen?!?)

It seems to me we already have consensus. Everyone who's spoken up
prefers that we ask IANA to register the numbers we've been squatting
on. Some have added that if the numbers get changed, then they can
live with that. I've already asked Hal Murray to submit a PR adding
the requested numbers to the draft, but I'll take it from whomever
submits one first.

This makes the argument over whether EF type codes have any structure
irrelevant because the codes we've been squatting already conform to
the structure that Harlan asserts exists. But the argument is also out
of order in general, because it's already been settled. Last year or
so Harlan sought adoption of a draft laying out this structure. That
draft is now a dead document because the response to the call for
adoption was overwhelming and unanimous in opposition to it.