Re: [Ntp] [Last-Call] 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)

Benjamin Kaduk <> Wed, 19 February 2020 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00E44120137; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:29:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3ZFSHSqqKzJL; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:29:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 247EF120127; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:29:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 01JITmXk006567 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 19 Feb 2020 13:29:50 -0500
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:29:47 -0800
From: Benjamin Kaduk <>
To: "Franke, Daniel" <>
Cc: Suresh Krishnan <>, Hal Murray <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "Karen O'Donoghue" <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] [Last-Call] 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: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:29:59 -0000

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 06:19:40PM +0000, Franke, Daniel wrote:
> Suresh,
> Hal may not have been clear. The four extension fields we're discussing are the four defined by the NTS draft. Due to the registry's unfortunate lack of any P&E range, Hal and other implementers have picked four codes that they've been squatting on for their draft implementations. Desiring to avoid a flag day when the draft becomes final, they'd like IANA to turn these four codes into official allocations rather than having IANA arbitrarily assign something else. Speaking as an author of the draft I have no objection to this.

It's pretty normal/supported to include requested values in the IANA
Considerations section.  Just be clear that they're suggestions and not
official allocations, lest you get a DISCUSS for codepoint squatting :)