[Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft‑ietf‑ntp‑interleaved‑modes‑05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> Tue, 20 July 2021 11:44 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA8CF3A1EBF for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 04:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ETXRcFwVH6Qt for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 04:44:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx3.uni-regensburg.de (mx3.uni-regensburg.de []) (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 799663A1EBC for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 04:44:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx3.uni-regensburg.de (localhost []) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id CFFD96000059 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:44:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de []) by mx3.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEF5C600004D for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:44:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:44:11 +0200
Message-Id: <60F6B70A020000A100042803@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 18.3.1
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:44:10 +0200
From: Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
To: "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>, mlichvar@redhat.com
References: <YNw9fHMijDFIW9B4@localhost> <YNrbjCDF4/609dg/@localhost> <D999D237-5A25-4E84-99D0-EE5DB2B13411@cisco.com> <YN3ZzPN5LOsAjmz6@localhost> <DM4PR11MB5438D8450E7B90D363929640B5119@DM4PR11MB5438.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <YPaunrczI/inrtMP@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <YPaunrczI/inrtMP@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/sM2uvoQKVJdq8zpw6rWBOkHuqUM>
Subject: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft‑ietf‑ntp‑interleaved‑modes‑05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Time Protocol <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, 20 Jul 2021 11:44:21 -0000

>>> Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> schrieb am 20.07.2021 um 13:08 in
Nachricht <YPaunrczI/inrtMP@localhost>:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 09:39:47AM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
>> Hence, I propose three possible alternatives:
>> (1) Change this document to somehow make use of NTPs extension mechanism
> continue down the path of publishing as a proposed standard.  This, I think,

> would probably entail taking the document back to the WG.
>> (2) Change the document status to Informational rather than Standards
> modifying the text to focus on documenting how some implementations work 
> rather than as an endorsement from IETF that this is the right way to modify

> the NTP protocol.
> I'd prefer the second choice. Would anyone from the WG oppose that?
>> (3) Alternatively, if the authors/WG believe that publishing that document

> as proposed standard is definitely the right choice, then I would be willing

> to change my ballot position to abstain.  I.e., I don't agree with what is 
> being done here, but neither will I block progression of the document, given

> that you say that this modification does not cause operational issues in 
> practice.

Maybe NTPv5 can "lift" interleaved mode to a standard (with a fixed
implementation, maybe).

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