IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ntpwg] Antw: Re: Solicit comments for draft-wu-ntp-ntp-cfg-00

Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> Thu, 23 July 2015 09:20 UTC

Return-Path: <ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 356381A90CA for <ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 02:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3gmNkQYMkNXf for <ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 02:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C7601A037E for <ntp-archives-ahFae6za@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 02:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4865386DB7A for <ntp-archives-ahFae6za@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:20:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AABD286D4A6 for <ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:50:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <mlichvar@redhat.com>) id 1ZICDK-000GCv-02 for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:50:59 +0000
Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 613CD377321; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:50:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (dhcp-24-154.brq.redhat.com [10.34.24.154]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t6N8omM7027966; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 04:50:48 -0400
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:50:47 +0200
From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
To: Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
Message-ID: <20150723085047.GI22394@localhost>
References: <0F26584357FD124DB93F1535E4B0A6505FC141B2@szxema508-mbx.china.huawei.com> <55AFE233.4000407@pdmconsulting.net> <0F26584357FD124DB93F1535E4B0A6505FC159E8@szxema508-mbx.china.huawei.com> <E1ZI6b4-0006qY-LN@stenn.ntp.org> <55B0B05D020000A10001B3A5@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <55B0B05D020000A10001B3A5@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.27
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.132.183.28
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mlichvar@redhat.com
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org)
Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Antw: Re: Solicit comments for draft-wu-ntp-ntp-cfg-00
X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol <ntpwg.lists.ntp.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ntp.org/options/ntpwg>, <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ntp.org/pipermail/ntpwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg>, <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org, eric.wu@huawei.com, mayer@pdmconsulting.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org
Sender: ntpwg <ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org>

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 09:14:05AM +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> >>> Harlan Stenn <stenn@ntp.org> schrieb am 23.07.2015 um 04:50 in Nachricht
> <E1ZI6b4-0006qY-LN@stenn.ntp.org>:
> > Eric,
> > 
> > On the one hand, if somebody isn't going to implement mode 6 if they go
> > to the trouble to implement their own version of NTP, and they're not
> > going to use the wildly portable reference implementation from NTF, why
> > would they decide to implement the Yang model instead?
> 
> I think the problem with "mode 6" is the lack of specification: As long as there is no standard for the names and syntax of variables reported (not to talk about the status (like "required" or "optional"), there cannot be universal tools to use "mode 6".

I'm not sure how useful a specification for the ntpd mode 6 protocol
would be. There is a lot of internal state exposed which would make
little sense in other NTP implementations and the management part is
mostly a subset of the ntp.conf language. In other implementations it
would basically be an ntpd simulator if fully implemented.

Also, the protocol has a problem with traffic amplification, which
would likely require an incompatible change to fix.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar
_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email