Re: [Ntp] Quick review of WGLC for status change for draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries

[Miroslav Lichvar <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 02:00:21AM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> The problems I (and the NTP Project) have with this document include, but
> are not limited to:
> 
> - it uses far too many words to say far too little.  In other places it uses
> far too few words to say even less, except where it says nothing about
> various significant aspects of the registries.

Which significant aspects of the registries are you referring to?

> - Table 1 is incomplete.  It does not include the value used by RFC 7821,
> and it frequently refers to values that are "reserved for historic reasons"
> without further explanation.  This leads me to:

The Checksum Complement EF (0x2005) is present in the table 1, but it
is incorrectly described as "Reserved for historic reasons". That
should be changed to refer to RFC 7821. Only the Autokey-related
entries should be "Reserved for historic reasons".

> - The document does not describe (ignores?) 22 years of conscious design
> decisions around the two versions (revisions?) of extension field syntax,
> which Dave Mills and I have previous spent 3+ years' time and effort (10
> document revisions) in documenting, in draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields.

As was discussed when the draft was submitted, it was making changes
incompatible with RFC7822, e.g. decreasing the minimum EF length. We
can do that in NTPv5, but not in NTPv4.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar