Re: [Ntp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-09.txt

[Hal Murray <[e-mail]>]

[e-mail] said:
> Is it an extension or is the digest?  Looking at figure 8, for example, where
> does it appear?  The text says it's a normal "section 8" (heh) packet, but
> are all the fields present?

It's not an extension.

> I'm trying to figure out how to explain it since what you're proposing is
> different from how I read the RFC. 

It's a non-extension.  I don't think you want to explain it.

You should probably add a paragraph pointing out that RFC 5905 describes a packet format that has a key ID word with a 32 bit field where the type field and length for extensions would go -- with a reference to RFC 7882.

Can that paragraph be added to the IANA registry?

This paragraph from your draft should also be added to the IANA registry:

  *The "Reserved for historic reasons" is for differences between
  the original documentation and implementation of Autokey and
  marks the erroneous values as reserved, in case there is an
  implementation that used the registered values instead of what
  the original implementation used.

Would it be appropriate to add an * to those slots?


-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.