Re: [Ntp] 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)

[Watson Ladd <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 2:28 PM Karen O'Donoghue <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> We have had conversations about this in the past and a couple different plans to move forward, but we have struggled to get final consensus on any of them. As Harlan indicated we had an initial agreement based on early drafts of NTS; however, time moved on, the NTS draft went in a radically different direction that where it started, and those agreements never gained the full consensus of the working group. So, we are where we are now, and we need to figure out how to efficiently and effectively move forward.
>
> Specifically with regard to the NTS draft...
> We can do two things:
> 1) Quickly come to consensus with the implementers, authors, and working group on an update to the IANA considerations text that we can add between IETF Last Call and the IESG vote.
> 2) Do nothing and let the IANA folks do what they will... (do you really want this to happen?!?)

Looking at the source the numbers are
const EXT_TYPE_UNIQUE_IDENTIFIER: u16 = 0x0104;
const EXT_TYPE_NTS_COOKIE: u16 = 0x0204;
const EXT_TYPE_NTS_COOKIE_PLACEHOLDER: u16 = 0x0304;
const EXT_TYPE_NTS_AUTHENTICATOR: u16 = 0x0404;
which I think are the ones that came out of conversation with Harlan
according to his email above.

But I'm fine treating these as experimental points and having
different ones in the RFC, although it's slightly less work for me if
we don't do that. In the future I strongly feel we need an
experimental range and need to expect that points outside the range
will be allocated as drafts advance.