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

[Ulrich Windl <[e-mail]>]

>>> Miroslav Lichvar <[e-mail]> schrieb am 08.08.2022 um 11:23 in
Nachricht <YvDWC27qKnODlD52@localhost>:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 02:00:21AM ‑0700, Harlan Stenn wrote:
>> The problems I (and the NTP Project) have with this document include, but
>> are not limited to:
>> 
>> ‑ it uses far too many words to say far too little.  In other places it
uses
>> far too few words to say even less, except where it says nothing about
>> various significant aspects of the registries.
> 
> Which significant aspects of the registries are you referring to?
> 
>> ‑ Table 1 is incomplete.  It does not include the value used by RFC 7821,
>> and it frequently refers to values that are "reserved for historic
reasons"
>> without further explanation.  This leads me to:
> 
> The Checksum Complement EF (0x2005) is present in the table 1, but it
> is incorrectly described as "Reserved for historic reasons". That
> should be changed to refer to RFC 7821. Only the Autokey‑related
> entries should be "Reserved for historic reasons".

Maybe change to "Reserved for historic reasons (deprecated autokey V#)" where
# is 1 or 2, most likely.

> 
>> ‑ The document does not describe (ignores?) 22 years of conscious design
>> decisions around the two versions (revisions?) of extension field syntax,
>> which Dave Mills and I have previous spent 3+ years' time and effort (10
>> document revisions) in documenting, in draft‑stenn‑ntp‑extension‑fields.
> 
> As was discussed when the draft was submitted, it was making changes
> incompatible with RFC7822, e.g. decreasing the minimum EF length. We
> can do that in NTPv5, but not in NTPv4.
> 
> ‑‑ 
> Miroslav Lichvar
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> [e-mail] 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp