[Ntp] Antw: Re: Antw: Re: Calls for Adoption -- NTP Extension Field drafts -- Four separate drafts

"Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> Tue, 10 September 2019 06:11 UTC

Return-Path: <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
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 10EED120867 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 23:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 g13L0Mn_jiwB for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 23:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx3.uni-regensburg.de (mx3.uni-regensburg.de [IPv6:2001:638:a05:137:165:0:4:4e79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 531D5120866 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 23:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx3.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 78F326000052 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:11:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.5.51]) by mx3.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66FBC600004D for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:11:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:11:02 +0200
Message-Id: <5D773E75020000A1000339FF@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 18.1.1
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:11:01 +0200
From: "Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
To: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@akamai.com>, "Daniel Franke" <dfoxfranke@gmail.com>
Cc: "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>,<stenn@nwtime.org>
References: <1B4A56E7-16A6-4767-9268-BCF4BEB9A247@isoc.org> <BCA949D7-7D92-43A9-9766-573559A9FC70@meinberg.de> <5D66392D020000A100033273@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <8F6BAF5F-CC7B-47B9-90FD-BD20D6ABE845@meinberg.de> <20190828103752.GI24761@localhost> <3f4b55ca-02d9-a470-229b-40860866efbf@nwtime.org> <20190828111458.GJ24761@localhost> <e50112dd-f918-1135-74c8-a738ecb70b70@nwtime.org> <55867E75-9813-466B-8E57-0E157DE5AEB9@meinberg.de> <d308b5d4-3d6e-981b-3dfc-9d5938bad78d@rubidium.se> <252618a3-d2fb-d5b1-baa4-72b16ef0f845@nwtime.org> <e5b16adb-eddb-fadd-4940-9d97685a36e4@rubidium.se> <6ccb0e56-8bf7-8625-4ee3-2cde6df11681@nwtime.org> <5104A844-93BE-4C8E-8EBC-23D1E656DDE3@akamai.com> <CAJm83bDxUZx9Ea9TOSBDh=MjrM4iG4iqmBQ3UVUQdo0EK0AM3A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJm83bDxUZx9Ea9TOSBDh=MjrM4iG4iqmBQ3UVUQdo0EK0AM3A@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/qS2BOtLOGsuk3cWmz5UpQfmrTpY>
Subject: [Ntp] Antw: Re: Antw: Re: Calls for Adoption -- NTP Extension Field drafts -- Four separate drafts
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: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 06:11:09 -0000

>>> Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com> schrieb am 09.09.2019 um 17:46 in
Nachricht
<CAJm83bDxUZx9Ea9TOSBDh=MjrM4iG4iqmBQ3UVUQdo0EK0AM3A@mail.gmail.com>om>:
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 11:32 AM Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:
>>
>> >    I continue to maintain that a response should be with a packet at the
>>     highest version level we speak that does not exceed the version of the
>>     incoming packet.
>>
>> I think this is a very interesting idea and deserves careful thought.
>>
>> Are there unique error codes in v3 and v4 that a v5 client could recognize 
> as "you're too modern for me" ?
> 
> No, but we could always introduce a new KISS code. Asking a v4 server
> to know how to respond to a v5 client with an error cognizable to the
> client is reasonable. But what Harlan seems to be asking, which I
> think is a terrible idea, is that v4 servers be able to respond
> *successfully* to v5 clients by assuming that v5 header fields are no
> different from v4 header fields, thus basically locking us into old
> design decisions for eternity.

Yes I think the RFC for NTPv5 should place clear rules to forbid that.

> 
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> ntp@ietf.org 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp