[Ntp] Antw: Re: 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> Mon, 26 July 2021 09:42 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 814853A2360 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 02:42:06 -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 o8Y_QE_DQGrJ for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 02:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.uni-regensburg.de (mx1.uni-regensburg.de [IPv6:2001:638:a05:137:165:0:3:bdf7]) (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 2FE413A235F for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 02:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.uni-regensburg.de (localhost []) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 76DE2600004F for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 11:41:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de []) by mx1.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EC6B600004D for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 11:41:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 11:41:58 +0200
Message-Id: <60FE8366020000A100042AD0@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 18.3.1
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 11:41:58 +0200
From: "Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
To: <ek.ietf@gmail.com>,<mlichvar@redhat.com>
Cc: "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>
References: <YNrbjCDF4/609dg/@localhost> <D999D237-5A25-4E84-99D0-EE5DB2B13411@cisco.com> <YN3ZzPN5LOsAjmz6@localhost> <DM4PR11MB5438D8450E7B90D363929640B5119@DM4PR11MB5438.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <YPaunrczI/inrtMP@localhost> <60F6B70A020000A100042803@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <YPa9H7IV2wITWKrD@localhost> <CAMGpriWzV4--_Nw9hsNC01U7f1FzjZQ8sNdJz+25dxhFtuDUvg@mail.gmail.com> <YPkxqtpgzD7g8Anz@localhost> <CAMGpriU3PKheo1uWStRid4z8mMuUvLwwkSx0j8+js=vOgnV3WQ@mail.gmail.com> <YP59F4YqwsevWjhz@localhost> <F540A225020000296A6A8CFC@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <F540A225020000296A6A8CFC@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
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/wo94VRl_P4xlXG7ilEMyWAfsyLM>
Subject: [Ntp] =?utf-8?q?Antw=3A_Re=3A__Antw=3A_=5BEXT=5D_Re=3A_Robert_Wi?= =?utf-8?b?bHRvbidzIERpc2N1c3Mgb24gZHJhZnTigJFpZXRm4oCRbnRw4oCRaW50ZXJs?= =?utf-8?b?ZWF2ZWTigJFtb2Rlc+KAkTA1OiAod2l0aCBESVNDVVNTIGFuZCBDT01NRU5U?= =?utf-8?q?=29?=
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: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 09:42:07 -0000

>>> Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> schrieb am 26.07.2021 um 11:15 in
Nachricht <YP59F4YqwsevWjhz@localhost>:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 04:54:25PM ‑0700, Erik Kline wrote:
>>     Using a 28‑octet extension field to convey a single bit of information
>>     is quite wasteful anyway.
>> While I certainly see this point, it occurred to me that if the extension
>> where written to be a general "extra flags and fields" extension ‑‑ of
>> which one was defined for "I speak interleaved" and rest reserved ‑‑ then
>> another way to think about it is that the cost of this space would be
>> amortized across the other future uses of the space.
> There was a draft like that
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft‑stenn‑ntp‑i‑do‑06 
> But if a significant number of existing servers doesn't respond to
> requests containing unknown extension fields (RFC5905 doesn't require
> that), how will the client be sure whether the interleaved mode is or
> is not supported? It would need to try both and see what works.

I think the current way should be deprecated as it was a bad idea (maybe good
enough for a local experiment).

> ‑‑ 
> Miroslav Lichvar