Re: [Ntp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-00.txt

Daniel Franke <> Thu, 05 August 2021 13:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AACC3A12B1 for <>; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 06:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FXF1lT_e3sz1 for <>; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 06:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 904B63A12B2 for <>; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 06:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u21-20020a17090a8915b02901782c36f543so6034214pjn.4 for <>; Thu, 05 Aug 2021 06:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AGtd6HZO9h8Nr0PTMY/FlbO29NJPf67p//ZwcpLVSwg=; b=EvoaSRsWGwccOGIgVBlUusSPtXb37QhiKnrf/Y2qCj5fp2Tp7KgEbSWTvE8oTJ52U5 yPR3rBSw/jb4bHDMEjbI9uex1Ay8dqq3LUnluyF3oDm1iQjaww1xJPkYXYRFIQkHbtm+ hHHsGbMsZNw3bAG6uzwZYNShwNbFgMAHj8D+yllYXZEOalFnu77SnbWtGAmu7w2FbFdq 0rYNHa1QbCxQiiZWk26XYBGhqKLGsZHUNAAJ6oHiLmgC6HuLiTGf1FhKD5KAwftYwznD lYu7gKwWNoxoQfwsa/XniK60apQsvRkAiQXph6VPYsykSRIMkTDSN31C0XMYR99su3t7 hrsg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AGtd6HZO9h8Nr0PTMY/FlbO29NJPf67p//ZwcpLVSwg=; b=mcEPogCdbelw5T4aD4zvZPuAaEXYLS0tOcGRFh7WjAGqnQPWB248gF4PN64eamOzzG MGaVWLubHpjs3LbYbYf9te486sqaUqZHSfSj9fkHEe/U2pR2HJT3WGlfaEIRtKz8EiXt tVzj7HvdeHw3nTniv78JJ0/FjkrS8YUEup7gG4XxflMrZQhLvq3/Ym46WX9rAYg3x1H9 RTJog73XnpzJB49AZKzI8g78yiYTwsAZGh7nvE2oROEGnGdyJDvAuxJvOwgArp4T2a6o dI0FT+5XyqVMLYMyPq1An1keoE5HNofEA1nQiqq3b1p/BVXv4aAc9VY7wdLzQvhn1TcD lShQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Cl38GlrlP43iA6vcD43yVHgiT0KDhZgRABcBxvvChAT3eEjK1 tRlEBfYRkwoPYc5q7cHofGxfITmB1Kgi4xwEFDC9Lri0
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyLkXEwXsmpdPDt/5dqtszR1yJmdSkASKbMU+o8ubbIYS4aZJst76qSF8kcPWPPHK7IebQwalp3YQgFwisAwbY=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:c443:b029:12c:92c1:9b4d with SMTP id m3-20020a170902c443b029012c92c19b4dmr4073226plm.85.1628171517081; Thu, 05 Aug 2021 06:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Daniel Franke <>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2021 09:51:45 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: "Salz, Rich" <>
Cc: "" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Time Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2021 13:52:03 -0000

I agree there's no technical reason for the distinction, but there's a
good social reason beyond just vanity. The split communicates useful
information. Whenever I'm trying to get an overview of the "world" of
an IETF protocol and its historical development, the IANA registries
are always my first stop. The split into low-numbered codepoints that
require IETF consensus and high-numbered ones that don't leads to a
good chronological presentation of how the IETF has evolved the
protocol over time, separated from and followed by a catalog of
third-party work which may or may not be important, of good quality,
or relevant outside a single organization.

On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 12:19 PM Salz, Rich
<> wrote:
>             Title           : The update registries draft
>             Author          : Rich Salz
>         Filename        : draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-00.txt
>         Pages           : 11
>         Date            : 2021-07-30
>     The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> In this draft I removed the distinctions that are currently in the NTS registries.  For example,
> Range   Registration Procedures
>         0-1023  IETF Review
>         1024-16383      Specification Required
>         16384-32767     Private or Experimental Use
> I think the 1023 stuff is reminiscent of "reserved ports" from BSD.  But I do not care very much, and if the WG agrees then I will remove that change. My reasons were that after a couple of years as one of the TLS experts, everything as "spec required" seems okay, we have a large number space, IETF review is a very high burden, and there's nothing special about those low numbers except vanity. :)
> I am curious what the WG thinks, and nudge Daniel to post.
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list