On 9/25/25 9:32 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 08:25:48AM -0500, Robert Sparks wrote:
On 9/25/25 5:34 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
Responses larger than requests are normally expected only with the NTP
control (6) and private (7) modes. They are the ones which were used
for the widely known traffic amplification DDoS attacks.
This draft only covers the client-server and symmetric timing modes,
I see the first sentence of the abstract. The document would be better if
this was made explicit in section 2, and that when you do so, you include
the word "only".
The section 2 says at the beginning:
A new TLV is defined for PTP to contain NTP messages in the NTP client
(3), server (4), and symmetric modes (1 and 2). Using other NTP modes
in the TLV is not specified.
I looked for that several times and missed it. Apologies. It is sufficient.
Do you suggest it says "A new TLV is defined for PTP to contain
NTP messages only in the NTP client ..." ?
To me that looks a bit odd.
But you're pointing out that the real problem is with the MUST in the
sentence. The paragraph reduces to "PTP implementations are supposed to
follow the PTP specifications", and I suggest you simply remove it from this
document - it's not needed here. What would an implementer do wrong if it
were removed?
That is a text that was suggested by the IEEE people to make it clear
that their specification must be followed. Without that MUST someone
might possibly think that if it's used for NTP, it doesn't really
matter what the other fields in the PTP message contain.
If it's hard fought for and agreed text than so be it. I don't think a
BCP 14 MUST is the right way to say this, but I can be in the rough. I
still think all you can say about _future_ versions of PTP is that it's
expected that this mechanism can work there.
Nits/editorial comments:
Please reference BCP14 rather that RFC2119.
That is RFC8174 should be referenced in addition to RFC2119?
A bit more than that. Look at the xml for recently published RFCs for what
the BCP14 description and reference looks like.
Hm, I looked at some recent RFCs, but I didn't see any other
difference. BCP 14 is constistently mentioned once in the
"Requirements Language" section and then in the two references to
RFC2119 and RFC8174.
Correct. You've seen the "bit more" - it's a reference to BCP14 not just
a reference to the two RFCs that are in the BCP.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
