Re: [Ntp] Draft minimzation: did we get the modes wrong?
Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com> Mon, 22 April 2019 20:37 UTC
Return-Path: <dfoxfranke@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAD1812039E for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:37:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 atU9N6zVSrmw for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82a.google.com (mail-qt1-x82a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1AD8120395 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82a.google.com with SMTP id g7so6200970qtc.0 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=WMH010oD1aUTPOuHLqoe5PzrmO4VtnuyYBesjQd1FP8=; b=QElS4FqGbmHYBauwdS+Ei+H8mIYgTztC4jDq+SZ2ZrbM40OoPkAIPgEnUllZgClWyS thRu5rCf/fgM6LzsdqCMpuSxaB0uhVJYNKlnLMrdTS4Z9pYfA4FR1U7/C9hEdT68PSG0 CaeDVrOit88HTiezaezMMIx96GaJUqkTa/ZDnmOm/QSmH8oJ7jRD+Fqbkwky/21iDByt TtCYF95hyq6Ws3+eEeU8GGN/7im+8PROjIMi8+4/4/tNYTVnj2Dfm9ueKHc9OR+JzG96 LgJmgiKSGJ7FnGoG1UQ+fJuWqXKoUYUTyKMGHXAYZIJXi94lA+xrWOBV11quQKugilk2 nuJg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WMH010oD1aUTPOuHLqoe5PzrmO4VtnuyYBesjQd1FP8=; b=HdmXuzceUlO2asYrt7homPuaxdXq/2O07fhvjvo8YGd4zvm7antP4mRPYlsDmyYAqk B+F92VBto4EMBe0jYrn6B2DUFkTK9/xS211o0Pq3KeI5mcNRNv1QJGn7coEISuLeB8sz djA8SJ93inJNemptOgJXFUkWZHMtzL+4ED2iTZmPkQFUn1srU3x2erJeeKUJ7XWgB4lQ 6dq1PcNtE8Tj5iVQDY7yJVoQ4Ar9t1p8yTepMlTTrYN6wIrIGw/TIDFHwrITsB10AKlI 1SqEE/UwL7x+JJyvfhF3r6p8qovgo1Qm4+7GGDZi/NZod822arpagaCTC7dqYqOoign+ NkPA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX/bdwfn8QEXk6gscyhdmrMUyxiWzrOCdLj5J6UykBAZIpzPlS/ CNm1uZV/odeGBhzdXiinFYgZHnmpOuqVXD0CGvqCf3f+
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwNXohGSI6t1n7fdeJgyllCSgvNXB47yOoKr60HyCTK+wJJ31UTH03akAYQT+E6/N2i27w6slwWKX74yGn0v7w=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:86f5:: with SMTP id 50mr16690114qvg.70.1555965470676; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAN2QdAEj4=gVXQrVXdU69x8QRzR3tFyLqadfFJZhDyPJNKL6WQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN2QdAEj4=gVXQrVXdU69x8QRzR3tFyLqadfFJZhDyPJNKL6WQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 16:37:39 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJm83bC_NKAYLqVA+FBRKcyx26O0t-e1fur_ON9ab4KaF7aNug@mail.gmail.com>
To: Watson Ladd <watson=40cloudflare.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/q6mV8GIAjcL3o38kyTIOHTV_20g>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Draft minimzation: did we get the modes wrong?
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ntp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ntp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ntp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 20:37:54 -0000
Clients send mode 3, servers send mode 4. I see the sentence in RFC 5905 you're referring to and it seems to be an error. It correctly refers to client packets as mode 3 and server packets as mode 4 in several other places, as do previous RFCs such as 4330. I'm a bit amazed that it's taken this long for anyone to spot this. On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 4:10 PM Watson Ladd <watson=40cloudflare.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Dear list, > Do clients send mode 3 packets or mode 4 packets? It seems this draft > ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp-data-minimization-04) > the NTP RFC disagree on this detail. > Sincerely, > Watson Ladd > > _______________________________________________ > ntp mailing list > ntp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
- [Ntp] Draft minimzation: did we get the modes wro… Watson Ladd
- Re: [Ntp] Draft minimzation: did we get the modes… Daniel Franke
- Re: [Ntp] Draft minimzation: did we get the modes… Watson Ladd