IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Heiko Gerstung <heiko.gerstung@meinberg.de> Wed, 28 August 2019 06:54 UTC

Return-Path: <heiko.gerstung@meinberg.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 E98A6120864 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 23:54:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.289
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.289 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=meinberg.de
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 f7XGl5H_BDj8 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 23:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server1a.meinberg.de (server1a.meinberg.de [176.9.44.212]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48DB0120863 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 23:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from srv-kerioconnect.py.meinberg.de (unknown [193.158.22.2]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by server1a.meinberg.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5653171C05E6; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:54:24 +0200 (CEST)
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 server1a.meinberg.de 5653171C05E6
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=meinberg.de; s=mail201101; t=1566975266; bh=6JDCMSNnXEJrAL+mI9lIP2Xtsre4d5irQejW/mVroFs=; h=Date:Subject:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:From: To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=GsUH9Ff8NKx2I0QFjKVpBuazlJAoRAJZ7OiaFDAf+B1/WiGRxjTXyUp+s6P3vXU4t ca6tKvP633KWov2e+20RJBYwqHc1jpPRNYXUunItthSv4vLCB6u1rteHWIM5NN2B9W 0gLKI+6vABnOuwxGPHVDeOpsydoq1NyT1g++LF6I=
X-Kerio-Anti-Spam: Build: [Engines: 2.15.9.1266, Stamp: 3], Multi: [Enabled, t: (0.000005,0.005718)], BW: [Enabled, t: (0.000006)], RTDA: [Enabled, t: (0.034339), Hit: No, Details: v2.7.53; Id: 15.1i6tpl9.1djbg1unn.d7e0o], total: 0(700)
X-Footer: bWVpbmJlcmcuZGU=
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.1c.0.190812
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:54:20 +0200
Message-ID: <BCA949D7-7D92-43A9-9766-573559A9FC70@meinberg.de>
Thread-Topic: [Ntp] Calls for Adoption -- NTP Extension Field drafts -- Four separate drafts
References: <1B4A56E7-16A6-4767-9268-BCF4BEB9A247@isoc.org>
In-Reply-To: <1B4A56E7-16A6-4767-9268-BCF4BEB9A247@isoc.org>
Mime-version: 1.0
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3
Thread-Index: AZ2x3tU+YjJiODBlNTRhYzNhODY4ZQ==
From: Heiko Gerstung <heiko.gerstung@meinberg.de>
To: Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org>, "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.100.3 at server1a
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/rZUuoPqJiSEakeYo5gw0VwMygoA>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] 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: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 06:54:31 -0000

Hi,

I do not support adopting all four drafts, I believe that we should either integrate them into a new revision of NTP ("NTPv5") or fix them problems/issues they address in that new "NTPv5" RFC. Most of the issues addressed by those drafts can be easily solved by changing/expanding the NTP packet format for "NTPv5". 

The "REFID" draft would be obsolete if an NTPv5 packet header for a server mode packet by definition includes  a "MY_ID" field. 

The "MAC/last extension field" draft would be obsolete if we define that NTPv5 does only support Extension Fields as allowed additional data and a MAC in v5 is always transported inside an extension field (the "MAC-EF" approach as described in the draft, for example). 

The "I-DO extension field" draft would be something I would integrate into a "NTPv5" RFC as a mandatory requirement for NTP servers. 

The "Extended Information Extension Field" draft would be obsolete if we introduce either additional packet header fields in v5 or just defined a new EF for information that we think should be available from the server. That EF could be sent or not, based on whether the client wants it or not (indicated by an EF sent by that client in its request, for example). 

Best Regards,
   Heiko


-- 
Heiko Gerstung 
Managing Director

MEINBERG® Funkuhren GmbH & Co. KG
Lange Wand 9
D-31812 Bad Pyrmont, Germany
Phone:    +49 (0)5281 9309-404
Fax:        +49 (0)5281 9309-9404

Amtsgericht Hannover 17HRA 100322
Geschäftsführer/Management: Günter Meinberg, Werner Meinberg, Andre Hartmann, Heiko Gerstung

Email:
 heiko.gerstung@meinberg.de 
Web:
 Deutsch   https://www.meinberg.de
 English    https://www.meinbergglobal.com

Do not miss our Time Synchronization Blog:
 https://blog.meinbergglobal.com 

Connect via LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/in/heikogerstung
 
 

On 28.08.19, 05:38 "ntp im Auftrag von Karen O'Donoghue" <ntp-bounces@ietf.org im Auftrag von odonoghue@isoc.org> wrote:

    Folks,
    
    The following four drafts are four different proposals for new extension fields. Please review each draft and indicate whether these should be adopted by the working group. I am sending them all as one set because they are all extension fields, but we need a response for each draft listed below. 
    
    Thanks!
    Karen and Dieter
    
    1.  Network Time Protocol Extended Information Extension Field
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stenn-ntp-extended-information/
    
    2.  Network Time Protocol I-Do Extension Field
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stenn-ntp-i-do/
    
    3.  Network Time Protocol MAC/Last Extension Fields
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stenn-ntp-mac-last-ef/
    
    4.  Network Time Protocol Suggested REFID Extension Field
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stenn-ntp-suggest-refid/
    
    _______________________________________________
    ntp mailing list
    ntp@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email