IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ntpwg] Antw: Re: The NTP WG has placed draft-haberman-ntpwg-mode-6-cmds in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Wed, 29 March 2017 13:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D11912953D for <ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GKfQMIjE_uoV for <ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A639129521 for <ntp-archives-ahFae6za@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28C0986DC1B for <ntp-archives-ahFae6za@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:42:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
Received: from mail1.ntp.org (fortinet.ntp.org [10.224.90.254]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 801E486DAB3 for <ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:42:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com ([206.197.161.140]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <brian@innovationslab.net>) id 1ctDs4-00085o-7n for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:42:53 +0000
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 842F98810A; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:42:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clemson.local (swifi-nat.jhuapl.edu [128.244.87.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 387A83280AE4; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:42:43 -0700 (PDT)
To: Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>, ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
References: <58DB51D3020000A10002562B@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> <58DB51D3020000A10002562B@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> <56ee9a97-6f65-bf71-0749-0596d3565a79@innovationslab.net> <58DBB3B8020000A100025649@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de>
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Message-ID: <df11e8aa-dbae-7c05-6749-0f1c66914f5a@innovationslab.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:42:36 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <58DBB3B8020000A100025649@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 206.197.161.140
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: brian@innovationslab.net
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org)
Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Antw: Re: The NTP WG has placed draft-haberman-ntpwg-mode-6-cmds in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol <ntpwg.lists.ntp.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ntp.org/options/ntpwg>, <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ntp.org/pipermail/ntpwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg>, <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0300343924701359717=="
Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org
Sender: ntpwg <ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org>

Hi Ulrich,

On 3/29/17 9:16 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>>>> Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> schrieb am 29.03.2017
>>>> um 14:16 in
> Nachricht <56ee9a97-6f65-bf71-0749-0596d3565a79@innovationslab.net>:
>> Hi Ulrich,
>> 
>> On 3/29/17 2:18 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>>> Yesterday's message had the wrong address in it:
>>> 
>>>> Yesterday I wrote:
>>>>>> The NTP WG has placed draft-haberman-ntpwg-mode-6-cmds in
>>>>>> state Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Karen
>>>>>> O'Donoghue)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The document is available at 
>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-haberman-ntpwg-mode-6-cmds/
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Actually I miss the purpose of the draft: Currently it seems
>>>>> to be just a copy from RFC 1305. Can anybody explain?
>> 
>> When RFC 5905 was published, it did not contain the mode 6
>> commands. Several people have complained about that, especially
>> having to refer back to a now obsolete RFC 1305.
>> 
>> The purpose of this draft is to provide an up-to-date reference for
>> the mode 6 commands.
> 
> I guessed so, but the document as it is now provides little new
> information, especially not on the fact that ntpdc's commands are
> mostly moved to mode 6. It would be nice to see them.

So, you would also like to see the mode 7 commands in this draft? Seems
reasonable on first thought.

I queried folks for any new mode 6 commands, but received no responses.
That is why there is no real new content between this draft and 1305.

> 
>> From one of my programs I've developed I can read tha tthe
>> definition of the event codes changed (in an incompatible) between
>> NTPv3 and v4. Similar for the peer event codes. Variable names also
>> changed (some renamed, some dropped, some new). E.g.: "poll" vs.
>> "tc". Another candidate is "state": First introduced in NTPv4, then
>> dropped again.
> 
> It's of little use when there is a command to read a variable (by
> name), when you don't know how the variable is named...
> 

Are you saying that there needs to be a renaming effort within this
draft to align names with 5905?

>> 
>> One of the items I want to complete if the draft is adopted is to 
>> modernize the text and align it with RFC 5905.
> 
> Not to forget draft-odonoghue-ntpv4-control-02.txt...

Yes. That was a previous attempt to bring the mode 6 information up to date.

Regards,
Brian


_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email