IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Ntp] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv5-02.txt

David Venhoek <david@venhoek.nl> Mon, 29 July 2024 07:30 UTC

Return-Path: <david@venhoek.nl>
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 CAAF3C14F5EF for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 00:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=venhoek-nl.20230601.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p0i7Ny3RjQeO for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 00:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62d.google.com (mail-ej1-x62d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6714EC151070 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 00:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62d.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a7a83a968ddso443965266b.0 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 00:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=venhoek-nl.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1722238229; x=1722843029; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=vOivKiXbLkNyiEuIm9ZXW0lYEMtUKLPNg+uyHwMJEb8=; b=ezPDkE8tTChGCsKNneNaYBrYQw5q23xjyam/Pfwe90eRqmXgG8AxUf6teicyAIKWd3 rfSjwYJ4FdZHbwDLT6m+zIsH11UOsrnJovtdj2Nj19vyzuIK1PR4aADJsNbRayOTb4pi N+E4DBD3BK394zAlGj3zdfVg4BPJPXjoV66NLJMx/g325KBoq2cBhdYyNbpA9OSr38dA 0Od/MwBIyxtYP8rxcAw0AkMzGJEbh/5nGRPzdyvbUqprhbQCmM7J/qcpGDswhUu7pOI3 Zb9+Fb5xCfXZPX4gXx6YizIeDuDjFmE7yiGNmqbtRTWBNxV8gnQdUqkB8yB9g/nOAx+S TMdg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1722238229; x=1722843029; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=vOivKiXbLkNyiEuIm9ZXW0lYEMtUKLPNg+uyHwMJEb8=; b=X308qT7Jsl/Ss0JjGRYob8j+VWoEFDGg26aVWnLYoDLWYMwO7YQyQ3TRXseZpV6aef hu1OC+M5ACbJHK1LmBG66l9FI3Zb4jluRcLDYDagnqvttBHSrcyugZ79KVZ3ZArBBSKo En3jYsghzn5soR0DDzQv7R/2/ZXd2ZZihEd7gUawh1ToBxk7CY++5MvEgduCAxKjEQcm wTIUSIoIAmtvzmfhY5I4m/loPOlydedPBriBFNMm+y9/SnauOefMKPGNDE4pbpblG1VX D3zg35rwn2RLTlQ0QIHJsq8DYO5dmHtaiiWw9xsI050Bl8Z3dXvHr5BC/QD4dMR0NISk HFkg==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUyUQLlgT1D4Usa8GLjvJNC+zjOu6ExKn2f1zWaEPm5rl7m3BGrfOI9HmgzO/Bldmp0CI9FMSQM3hPOfB4=
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzbUOPS3kM7PahAPwyDrJCenqgYXGCWFU46LKwLlhhde9pgeXNt S3myNvQRqXtOljZTgTA1Ik9H9ph3bu9+ANW9vifUmCY/Kj1IEs8Vv5+7GAivSAvbZeRt9kUhdiO U5NuLVCL3OWq/k4UK50hAzWo5WeTAgCH0cOpEBQNCgkuUyA6Y
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHFyAndiPb2FalMp4CjxQQX0sPkSftHycNS6z0KtHJZMgh3qSlVqUsLJ+Rz78T4HuKT5DefRt34hdStpndvoOM=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:dc8b:b0:a6f:593f:d336 with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a7d3ff57375mr542579966b.11.1722238228214; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 00:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <171880149775.17275.17603202157290281888@ietfa.amsl.com> <AM7PR02MB576576740392B0B63189B4EFCFD42@AM7PR02MB5765.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com> <CAKtkH6yn4X1Eo8Mh1LY0zC9doX_Yxh8Aw=7iPHDxg1p=K0dERA@mail.gmail.com> <Zqc6mPZDkKigsyLS@localhost> <CAKvtgU3asMN-kTOm=dGBFQgg5ZEsO=ui+DLnK+CakBKkade46Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKvtgU3asMN-kTOm=dGBFQgg5ZEsO=ui+DLnK+CakBKkade46Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Venhoek <david@venhoek.nl>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 09:30:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPz_-SX4BB9y9Yzcn49UirWOS7uhLSe-fo6FpACJd7_zEyNpyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tamme Dittrich <tamme@tweedegolf.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cfd76f061e5dd565"
Message-ID-Hash: XYBEDFGYLVGJF66BXYQOS4WUCZOMMRWC
X-Message-ID-Hash: XYBEDFGYLVGJF66BXYQOS4WUCZOMMRWC
X-MailFrom: david@venhoek.nl
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ntp.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Dieter Sibold <dsibold.ietf@gmail.com>, Doug Arnold <doug.arnold=40meinberg-usa.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>, "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [Ntp] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv5-02.txt
List-Id: Network Time Protocol <ntp.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/s7xoUQ184He0bJIbjVhs1GQQnQI>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ntp>
List-Help: <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ntp-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ntp@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ntp-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ntp-leave@ietf.org>

I concur with Tamme on this, but we both work on the same implementation.
It would be interesting to hear what the other implementations think of
this.

On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 09:07, Tamme Dittrich <tamme@tweedegolf.com> wrote:

> Hey,
>
> in my opinion swapping the meanings is the cleaner solution. It also makes
> it easier for new implementations to get it correct.
>
> I also would not mind implementing it, since parsing the NTPv5 header is
> already quite different to the NTPv4 header.
>
> -Tamme
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 8:46 AM Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 09:15:56PM +0200, Dieter Sibold wrote:
>> > I'm wondering why the information about the unknown leap is transmitted
>> by
>> > the field Flags and not bei the field LI? Would it not make sense that
>> all
>> > leap seconds related information is transmitted by the Leap Indicator
>> field
>> > LI? Could the meaning of LI=3 and Flag=1 be swapped? Or are there
>> technical
>> > reasons against this?
>>
>> Good question.
>>
>> I agree it would be cleaner to have those meanings swapped. The
>> question is if it's worth the potential confusion and additional
>> complexity in implementations that want to support both NTPv4 and
>> NTPv5. I think I'd not mind that.
>>
>> Any other opinions?
>>
>> --
>> Miroslav Lichvar
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ntp mailing list -- ntp@ietf.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to ntp-leave@ietf.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list -- ntp@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to ntp-leave@ietf.org
>

v2.27.6 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status