IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] Quick review of WGLC for status change for draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries

Harlan Stenn <stenn@nwtime.org> Wed, 17 August 2022 00:28 UTC

Return-Path: <stenn@nwtime.org>
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 6EC4EC152587 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Aug 2022 17:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EDnMkUIH1twQ for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Aug 2022 17:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chessie.everett.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1:205::234]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A16CC14CF14 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Aug 2022 17:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.208.75.149] (071-084-168-128.res.spectrum.com [71.84.168.128]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by chessie.everett.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4M6pkz0VfXzMNZh; Wed, 17 Aug 2022 00:27:55 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <39f8b373-20c1-ad2f-de3c-22902eb2ea4f@nwtime.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2022 17:27:53 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.12.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>, Danny Mayer <mayer@pdmconsulting.net>
Cc: "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>
References: <PH0PR06MB70611F2331D8255F7E2B6604C2999@PH0PR06MB7061.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <0b4c7efa-3977-b588-0974-33b6a9437e52@nwtime.org> <YvDWC27qKnODlD52@localhost> <0b57b7db-772e-f5e6-e6a0-a433673f3d77@nwtime.org> <YvED7T5R0UsRWbv3@localhost> <b64c6a0a-ea2e-0a19-4bb9-38bfaa2e5032@nwtime.org> <YvIUIu1LaloEjJMb@localhost> <a500eea8-e6a1-c10f-2385-3a05fb0e9638@pdmconsulting.net> <Yvomi1Y5hWhPi8Av@localhost> <4723f2b2-43b0-a9ee-4d80-6e31d74b9d3a@pdmconsulting.net> <YvtBSLkHF1JpGH07@localhost> <A2E4FF6B-89FE-41B0-9047-7A64ED3411CD@akamai.com>
From: Harlan Stenn <stenn@nwtime.org>
In-Reply-To: <A2E4FF6B-89FE-41B0-9047-7A64ED3411CD@akamai.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/l0ewjghJhDb-4_khjp2BHrUlvqs>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Quick review of WGLC for status change for draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 17 Aug 2022 00:28:04 -0000

On 8/16/2022 6:32 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>  >    The document discussed here is trying
>  >    to update the IANA table to include both sets of values in order to
>  >    prevent conflicts with newly specified extension fields, as already
>  >    happened with NTS.
> 
> Yes, exactly.

Shenanigans.

I have asked for specific details about the conflict and nobody has 
answered me.

I have previously shown how I believe that at the "association" level, 
this conflict appears to be a non-issue.  Nobody has offered any 
feedback that my analysis is either flawed or incomplete.

I am fast approaching the conclusion that the only way this can be a 
problem is that if a programmer/implementor does a really poor job of 
coding.

So rather than ASSUME that is the case, I'd really like to hear about a 
"better" reason.
-- 
Harlan Stenn <stenn@nwtime.org>
http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member!

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email