Hi All,
Thanks Tal for considering the query.
Yes, Even I would like to hear from WG. Please give your opinion on
M-Bit.
I hope, this is right time. I don't want to hold any drafts for
adoption.
Thanks & Regards
Anil S N
"Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" - Jon Postel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tal Mizrahi [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 30 June 2015 18:46
> To: Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL); Karen O'Donoghue;
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [TICTOC] WGLC on draft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer-01.txt
> (Was: WGLC on draft-mizrahi-ntp-checksum-trailer-02.txt)
>
> Hi Anil,
>
> Thanks for the prompt response.
>
> > I support this draft, But how about more Bit incorporating in field
> type, Tal let me know your view.
>
> The checksum trailer draft requests IANA to allocate an extension field
> type.
> Note that:
> (1) In unauthenticated mode, the checksum trailer extension field is
> the last one.
> (2) In authenticated mode, the checksum trailer extension field is
> followed by the MAC / Autokey extension field.
>
> The suggested M-bit in draft-choudharykumar-ntp-ntpv4-extended-
> extensions indicates whether the current extension field is the last or
> not.
> So once the checksum trailer draft has an allocated extension field
> type, its most significant bit will be fixed to either 0 or 1, but
> cannot cover both case (1) and case (2) above.
>
> A possible way to resolve this is to have two types allocated in the
> checksum trailer draft, one for case (1), and another for case (2). The
> two types would be identical, except for the most significant bit. This
> would allow future compatibility with the M-bit, if adopted.
>
> A question to the WG: do we want to provision for the potential
> adoption of the M-bit?
>
> Thanks,
> Tal.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ntpwg [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 3:34 PM
> To: Karen O'Donoghue; [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [ntpwg] WGLC on draft-mizrahi-ntp-checksum-trailer-02.txt
>
> I support this draft, But how about more Bit incorporating in field
> type, Tal let me know your view.
>
> Thanks & Regards
> Anil S N
>
> "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" -
> Jon Postel
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ntpwg [mailto:[email protected]]
> On
> > Behalf Of Karen O'Donoghue
> > Sent: 30 June 2015 17:59
> > To: [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: [ntpwg] WGLC on draft-mizrahi-ntp-checksum-trailer-02.txt
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > This begins a two week working group last call (WGLC) on
> > draft-mizrahi- ntp-checksum-trailer-02.txt Using UDP Checksum
> Trailers
> > in the Network Time Protocol (NTP)
> >
> > This document has been proposed as an experimental RFC and has been
> > available for quite some time.
> >
> > Please respond by 15 July 2015 to the mailing list with any comments
> > or objections to the draft.
> >
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mizrahi-ntp-checksum-trailer
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Karen
> > _______________________________________________
> > ntpwg mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg
> _______________________________________________
> ntpwg mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg
_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
