[Ntp] Re: NTPv5: Operational use case for server/node identification

[Danny Mayer <[e-mail]>]

On 7/21/26 4:44 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 12:13:32AM +0200, Sarah Grant wrote:
>>> On 20 Jul 2026, at 12:01, Miroslav Lichvar <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> If it needs to work in both NTPv4 and NTPv5, yes, that would make
>>> sense to me, assuming 255 bytes as the maximum length is sufficient.
>>>
>>> If it was only for NTPv5 (which allows EF lengths not divisible by 4)
>>> the additional length field wouldn't be necessary. The client would
>>> know it got everything when the EF in the response is shorter than in
>>> the request.
>> There isn't an additional length field I don't think. What we've written is not much different than how NTPv5 describes the structure of EFs. Can you please clarify?
> I meant here the first byte of the EF payload to provide the actual
> length (even if the EF is truncated) as Hal proposed.

There is no need to truncate an EF body. The length of the EF is defined 
in its header. I'd be concerned if the EF was 1000 bytes mainly because 
it would seem to be sending to much information.

Danny