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

Hal Murray <> Tue, 20 July 2021 19:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDDF83A2F60 for <>; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 12:33:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RIjDRF7uykGi for <>; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 12:33:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80EAC3A2F5F for <>; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 12:33:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id 16KJXGQN024648 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 20 Jul 2021 12:33:17 -0700
Received: from hgm (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7D6528C157; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 12:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.9.0 11/07/2018 with nmh-1.7.1
To: Miroslav Lichvar <>
cc:, Hal Murray <>
From: Hal Murray <>
In-Reply-To: Message from Miroslav Lichvar <> of "Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:08:14 +0200." <YPaunrczI/inrtMP@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 12:33:15 -0700
Message-Id: <>
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVYa1G7hHSbo9VLVD4C42W2wzIaLUvToiRiJ7iQikGTmgiNH/8/JXrW4o0s4KmGMIws+15znSEufI0Upaotp0Zu9HyojDsBQnLk=
X-Sonic-ID: C;qKnhVJHp6xGncdvKcSgy2w== M;DEgWVZHp6xGncdvKcSgy2w==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: -1.5/5.0 by cerberusd
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-ntp-interleaved-modes-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Time Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 19:33:21 -0000 said:
>> (2) Change the document status to Informational rather than Standards Track,
>> 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? 

I'd be happy with that.


The draft should probably say something about NAT.  draft 06 says:

    The server MAY separate the timestamps by IP addresses, but it
  SHOULD NOT separate them by port numbers to support clients
  that change their port between requests, as recommended by

If I understand things correctly, that will work if one and only one system is 
going through a NAT box and get complicated when a second system joins in.  
That might be an interesting test case.

These are my opinions.  I hate spam.