On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:36:34PM +0200, [email protected] wrote: > During the NTP interim meeting in Boston, Oct 2016 we had a thorough > discussion of how to transport NTP's symmetric mode. At this time we had > consensus to postpone the encapsulation of DTLS records within EF. Therefore, > the draft represents the decisions take at that time. As Daniel pointed out. > The current scheme to protect the symmetric mode has no disadvantage > regarding time synchronization performance. I would guess that for the > majority of mode 1/2 configuration it will work just well. It will certainly > not work for the special configuration you mentioned. But an alternative > approach can be specified, if future reveals that for any reason this is > mandatory for the symmetric mode. But until that we should promote the > current approach.
If DTLS over NTP was just postponed, why specify now a different transport for this rarely used mode? Is anyone actually interested in implementing the symmetric mode over DTLS as it is proposed? If I understand it correctly, there is no plan to support it in any of the (few) existing open source implementations. Isn't there a rule about not specifying things for which there is no demand? Maybe I'm completely wrong, but to me it feels like there is a pressure for NTS to cover as many modes of NTP as quickly as possible. If we support two different transports, with every new change in NTP we will have to ask if and how it works in each of them. -- Miroslav Lichvar _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
