On 6/30/2015 1:29 PM, Anil Kumar wrote: > If issue is backward compatibility I will prove it, if new extensions > Field type is not conflicting with autokey. It has no issues. >
How are you intending to check ntpd, sntp, ntpdate, ntimed, Windows Time, chrony, and a vast number of clients? Let us solve the real problem rather than coming up with hacks that will be almost impossible to do right. Danny > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 10:55 PMÂ Danny Mayer <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > ntpwg mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg > _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
