Re: [Ntp] NTP Extensions (was Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-22.txt> (Network Time Security for the Network Time Protocol) to Proposed Standard)

[Watson Ladd <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 2:08 PM Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/19/2020 1:59 PM, Watson Ladd wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 1:33 PM Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Except that we did discuss this, years ago, and there was a meeting with
> >> me and Karen and I forget who else where we specifically said that
> >> 0xnn04 was already allocated for NTS.  I've long been saying we need a
> >> way to make progress with EF proposals that does not cause collisions
> >> between inplementations and avoids flag days.  Furthermore, I told Karen
> >> that the NTP Project was using 0xNN0[5-9] for other proposals and that
> >> with no progress on changing the way the NTP Extension Field IANA
> >> registry was being managed, that 1) the NTP Project has a chalkboard
> >> that we're using for this purpose, and 2) if anybody wants to work on an
> >> EF they should just let me know.
> >
> > The way to achieve this is to make an experimental/private use range
> > for the registry. The registry is currently IETF review, which is
> > annoying: it's big enough to be Specification Required unless
> > proposals take large chunks of the range. It's not impossible to
> > change this with WG consensus.
>
> Sorry, no.  There are 8 bits available for this.  If you would have
> followed the design that was put in place 20 years ago you'd know this.

RFC 7822 allocates 16 bits for extension types.