On 6/30/2015 9:15 AM, Tal Mizrahi wrote: > 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? >
No. It doesn't solve the problem for which they want it in a backward compatible way. Danny _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
