Re: [Ntp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields

[Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]>]

On 9/28/18 4:29 AM, Hal Murray wrote:
> 
> [e-mail] said:
>> Re "declaring" what is supported, you're saying you are supporting:
>>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stenn-ntp-i-do-04
>> right? 
> 
> No.  I was thinking of something much simpler.  Maybe a note on the web page 
> describing the NTP server, next to the place where it says it does/doesn't do 
> leap smearing.

In an operational setting, how is external information about what is or
is not supported useful?

The whole point of I-DO is that it provides a way for a newer instance
of the code to operationally detect what the other side can handle.

Have you actually implemented your idea?  What does it get you?  What
does it *not* get you?

> I'm not sure that "what is supported" captures the spirit of what I was 
> suggesting.  I was trying to describe something that wasn't supported.  You 
> may be able to turn that inside out with some good wordsmithing.
> 
> 
>> I think everything else in this thread is clearly and fully covered in the
>> (updated):
>>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields-07 
> 
> I find section 4 hard to read.  There are huge chunks of old/new text with no 
> summary of what is changing.

The text of the old and new stuff is pretty small, and it's pretty easy
to see what changed.  Are you saying you have tried to implement this
and you had difficulty?

> The minimum length of 16 bytes has been changed to 8.  I still don't 
> understand why an EF needs any payload at all.

Where do you see that the minimum length is 8?  Section 4.2 (the new
section 7.5) says:

 ... The minimunm size of an Extension Field is a 32-bit word
 (4 octets),  ...

> It still describes the 16 bit extension-type field as 2 flag bits, one for 
> query/response, and another that is deprecated.  Is there an EF type for MAC?  
> Is that a query or response?

I don't understand your first question.  A legacy MAC is not an EF.

I don't see
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-stenn-ntp-mac-last-ef-02.txt
listed anywhere on the IETF tools document tracker.  But that's where
the MAC-EF proposal was.

As for your second, would you be happier with:

 R: 0 for "Information/Query", 1 for a "Response"

I think I'll make that change anyway.

> The link behind "NEW: 'RFC5905 Section 7.5.1 - Extension Fields and MACs'" in 
> the Table of Contents doesn't work.  (It's a new section.  There is no place 
> to link to.  I think the link should be removed.)

There is a place to link to - it's on the top of page 8.

> There are no links to sections 4.2 or 4.3 from the Table of Contents.

The draft is in XML format and uses the IETF tools.  If there's a bug in
their HTML generator please let them know.

-- 
Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]>
http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member!