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

["Franke, Daniel" <dafranke@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Suresh,

Hal may not have been clear. The four extension fields we're discussing are the four defined by the NTS draft. Due to the registry's unfortunate lack of any P&E range, Hal and other implementers have picked four codes that they've been squatting on for their draft implementations. Desiring to avoid a flag day when the draft becomes final, they'd like IANA to turn these four codes into official allocations rather than having IANA arbitrarily assign something else. Speaking as an author of the draft I have no objection to this.

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <Suresh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 11:48
To: Hal Murray
Cc: Daniel Lublin; last-call@xxxxxxxx; ntp@xxxxxxxx; Karen O'Donoghue; draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp@xxxxxxxx; ntp-chairs@xxxxxxxx; IETF-Announce
Subject: NTP Extensions (was Re: [Ntp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-22.txt> (Network Time Security for the Network Time Protocol) to Proposed Standard)

 

Hi Hal,

  (Changed subject to match your question below)

On Feb 19, 2020, at 3:48 AM, Hal Murray <hmurray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

daniel@xxxxxxxxx said:

I'm not entirely convinced of keeping a list of implementations in an RFC.
But since the information is there, let's at least have it corrected and
updated upon publishing.

I thought it was a temporary section and would be deleted by the final editing
pass when the TBDs were filled in.

Traditionally, RFCs required running code, normally at least 2 independent
implementations that can talk to each other.  That section is useful while
debugging and collects the data for the reviewers.

-------

Speaking of TBDs...  How do we contact the czar who assigns numbers for NTP
extensions?  We've all been testing with 4 values.  It will be a pain if they
change and I don't know of any reason not to make the values we are using
official.

If you are talking about NTP extension field types [0], they do require IETF review for allocation (i.e. no czar). Writing up a draft with your usage and sending it over to the ntp wg for consideration would be the best way forward.

[0] https://www.iana.org/assignments/ntp-parameters/ntp-parameters.xhtml#ntp-parameters-3

Regards

Suresh

-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call