I believe RFC is not specific to ntpd, sntp, ntpdate, ntimed, Windows, Time, chrony etc... All above has to follow RFC, So if conformance is with RFC is ultimate reasoning.
I will publish detailed analysis on behavior NTPv3/NTPv4 with respect to M-Bit. The problem is that while designing extension addition padding issue should have been taken care, We are trying to solve it. This is an honest attempt. I discussed with our network solution team, in real network most of devices use only NTPv3 and they are not even willing to move into NTPv4 as NTPv3 is serving their purpose. Moving into New version is not the only solution to all the issues. We need some improvements in current NTPv4 too. Core network is easy to upgrade as there will be less device using NTP, if we move towards Access ring the number of devices are huge. The point is coustmer is willing to move NTPv5 if we can provide them only with very attractive/convincing features with integrated diagnostic tools, Since each server at the access ring is handling huge number of clients, if there is a flapping in server. Server receives burst of client requests. One of the requirements came for solution team is to find as many servers as possible dynamically (with out multicast) and narrow down to stable servers. Administrator should be able select one of the best server. Selecting server : histroy of stability, challenge is trustability & current load. So I feel we need to solve issue by issue. Lets not differintiate small or big. Thanks & Regards Anil S N "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" - Jon Postel > -----Original Message----- > From: Danny Mayer [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 01 July 2015 08:43 > To: Anil Kumar; Tal Mizrahi; Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL); Karen > O'Donoghue; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ntpwg] [TICTOC] WGLC on draft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer- > 01.txt (Was: WGLC on draft-mizrahi-ntp-checksum-trailer-02.txt) > > 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
