From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Mon May 6 04:28:16 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 795C121F8E8F for ; Mon, 6 May 2013 04:28:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.95 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.649, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oPhN8-iX0hqj for ; Mon, 6 May 2013 04:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70DC621F8551 for ; Mon, 6 May 2013 04:28:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D142786D767 for ; Mon, 6 May 2013 11:28:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97C8986D422 for ; Mon, 6 May 2013 08:34:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rfc-editor.org ([2001:1890:126c::1:2f]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1UZGrv-0004IC-Cg for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Mon, 06 May 2013 08:34:01 +0000 Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id DFA84B1E003; Mon, 6 May 2013 01:33:04 -0700 (PDT) To: mills@udel.edu, jrmii@isc.org, jack.burbank@jhuapl.edu, william.kasch@jhuapl.edu, brian@innovationslab.net, ted.lemon@nominum.com, odonoghue@isoc.org From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20130506083304.DFA84B1E003@rfc-editor.org> Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 01:33:04 -0700 (PDT) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:1890:126c::1:2f X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: wwwrun@rfc-editor.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 06 May 2013 11:27:44 +0000 Cc: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org, tony.obrien@alliedtelesis.co.nz, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [ntpwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5905 (3613) X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5905, "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5905&eid=3613 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Tony O'Brien Section: 8 Original Text ------------- Corrected Text -------------- Notes ----- In the paragraph explaining the sanity checks on received packets, it states: "In the exchange above, a packet is duplicate or replay if the transmit timestamp t3 in the packet matches the org state variable T3." But in the pseudo-code in A.5.1 it states /* * If the transmit timestamp duplicates a previous one, the * packet is a replay. */ if (r->xmt == p->xmt) i.e. comparing the transmit timestamp p->xmt with the xmt state variable T1. Which is correct? Similarly for the check for a bogus packet, Section 8 states: "A packet is bogus if the origin timestamp t1 in the packet does not match the xmt state variable T1. But the pseudo-code says: /* * If this is a broadcast mode packet, skip further checking. * If the origin timestamp is zero, the sender has not yet heard * from us. Otherwise, if the origin timestamp does not match * the transmit timestamp, the packet is bogus. */ synch = TRUE; if (r->mode != M_BCST) { if (r->org == 0) synch = FALSE; /* unsynchronized */ else if (r->org != p->xmt) synch = FALSE; /* bogus packet */ } i.e. it is comparing the transmit timestamp t3 in the packet with the org state variable T3. Which is correct? Looking at Figure 15 my guess would be Section 8 is correct but I have seen code that more closely follows the pseudo-code. Instructions: ------------- This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC5905 (draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-proto-13) -------------------------------------- Title : Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification Publication Date : June 2010 Author(s) : D. Mills, J. Martin, Ed., J. Burbank, W. Kasch Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Network Time Protocol Area : Internet Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Thu May 16 05:14:17 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9793021F9227 for ; Thu, 16 May 2013 05:14:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.343 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.343 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.256, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jb10QvI88oaT for ; Thu, 16 May 2013 05:14:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87BD121F8EC6 for ; Thu, 16 May 2013 05:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC88886DAAF for ; Thu, 16 May 2013 12:14:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C8AC86D333 for ; Thu, 16 May 2013 12:13:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rfc-editor.org ([2001:1890:126c::1:2f]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Ucx48-000Ies-RT for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Thu, 16 May 2013 12:13:50 +0000 Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 13ED562103; Thu, 16 May 2013 05:13:32 -0700 (PDT) To: richard.gayraud@free.fr, blourdel@cisco.com, brian@innovationslab.net, ted.lemon@nominum.com, odonoghue@isoc.org From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20130516121332.13ED562103@rfc-editor.org> Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 05:13:32 -0700 (PDT) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:1890:126c::1:2f X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: wwwrun@rfc-editor.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Cc: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org, fx.lebail@yahoo.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [ntpwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5908 (3624) X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5908, "Network Time Protocol (NTP) Server Option for DHCPv6". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5908&eid=3624 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Francois-Xavier Le Bail Section: 4 Original Text ------------- [...] The currently defined time source suboptions are NTP_OPTION_SRV_ADDR, NTP_OPTION_SRV_MC_ADDR, and NTP_OPTION_SRV_FQDN. [...] Corrected Text -------------- [...] The currently defined time source suboptions are NTP_SUBOPTION_SRV_ADDR, NTP_SUBOPTION_MC_ADDR, and NTP_SUBOPTION_SRV_FQDN. [...] Notes ----- It does not appear clearly if the type of error must be technical or editorial. The three suboptions are defined in the sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3. Their names are differents of those used in second paragraph of the section 4. Iana standardized the 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 names. see: http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters/bootp-dhcp-parameters.xml [...] Value Name Reference 1 NTP_SUBOPTION_SRV_ADDR [RFC5908] 2 NTP_SUBOPTION_MC_ADDR [RFC5908] 3 NTP_SUBOPTION_SRV_FQDN [RFC5908] [...] Instructions: ------------- This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC5908 (draft-ietf-ntp-dhcpv6-ntp-opt-06) -------------------------------------- Title : Network Time Protocol (NTP) Server Option for DHCPv6 Publication Date : June 2010 Author(s) : R. Gayraud, B. Lourdelet Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Network Time Protocol Area : Internet Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Fri May 17 04:42:53 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1FC821F8E84 for ; Fri, 17 May 2013 04:42:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Q-YwqlsdIcI for ; Fri, 17 May 2013 04:42:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A79D621F93F1 for ; Fri, 17 May 2013 04:42:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4712B86DADA for ; Fri, 17 May 2013 11:42:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D713786D333 for ; Fri, 17 May 2013 09:48:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nm1-vm0.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ([98.138.91.74]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1UdHHJ-000Phi-Ms for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Fri, 17 May 2013 09:48:46 +0000 Received: from [98.138.90.49] by nm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 May 2013 09:48:39 -0000 Received: from [98.138.89.161] by tm2.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 May 2013 09:48:39 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1017.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 May 2013 09:48:39 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 762875.46812.bm@omp1017.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 5117 invoked by uid 60001); 17 May 2013 09:48:39 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1368784119; bh=HJMezKWp9ZcotV7wgiZxPCoF0DDLWomxMC0dN16KOb0=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Hiy0Nh/WNd4s8NEt47XcKmEI6i1FtCy6xuT9RrVg9WUDQ/KtMSS4AXGhRivd8EqM2FqMsZ7b3bGDtGbKJ6lPLzmxe22CFbY52px2LmDGFUOiP/l7cpDLqSGSw/MWR2VffUOQLObZzLWWZ83ShUtm8IOUHzr6h/4Khb5e48AOx4U= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=PSFv0HKSG3msU/wlROpVL/wXygEdQ7YhhY12cQEFjaLNruyZsw8B2qFC5M3QtGr3IbCStTh+VZcmdDG7Tzftab+2I3Aj8opBrChHXbeaBbyTneYOgF2pLaGFMW9ZW+EV4NqjMiMsUDs99gHsZMCs7xOogfdd7JNecTDduE4HfUA=; X-YMail-OSG: yHwau2MVM1lpCBxwJFJlHUiRnaT7lB39wFSKfw_J0NLqVjQ vleLX8_zyx4yjCaT3.K.iBLs6LEO0iIuEWw4hu6QIBCJTfEEscFLL4YAhJSH _fg8k7vjdQlfJN6Zz.r45B_BCtFuAQwA_5et5QhlG7jWfiM8fVfyOUBTlLVp GS5nGTH69Um6lIq8tDuahHd_jbRS07KRRFXA.yJEXIOaNVl9eatZpRJ0uvgQ WYjGujUpUS09LffHbYIKqRxOyQTS6y23GkZynKglFOj6Rfsi.ccAZDPU9NXF fPcxOL8MDATIvhgcwQMi0GUUUMmRti._UvYssz4MKFDyJsjwYtlrsNsSf1cj LNTdx8AvXsO0OWvMQClQSdFz9rJx82VNt2a0YhAnW2NCmRkAEhGBhoVGmDyn M5U7bzigAdyYMyefmbGPikDZfcVaFoCKeh_eV.Esijo99wWc1d.dUOZTfIKl psQeGpAitaDT_pqpbVrRfqCxxENmR72F2k5u06vgddL9NhNGzqn3T_2_1WdQ SwOYyKOpTbf5_fF8z0slX0KkRRCKvhRGBOMe.gHKDDoKnadD_MnLeqtejCb0 ZIwcu6jVTr5HmmUVeeOyr_tKG2A-- Received: from [193.49.124.107] by web125503.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 17 May 2013 02:48:39 PDT X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001, SGVsbG8sCgoKQWJvdXQgUkZDNTkwOCwgIk5ldHdvcmsgVGltZSBQcm90b2NvbCAoTlRQKSBTZXJ2ZXIgT3B0aW9uIGZvciBESENQdjYiLgoKU2VjdGlvbiA0IHNheXM6IApUaGUgb3B0aW9uIGl0c2VsZiBkb2VzIG5vdCBjb250YWluIGFueSB2YWx1ZS7CoCBJbnN0ZWFkLCBpdCBjb250YWlucwpvbmUgb3Igc2V2ZXJhbCBzdWJvcHRpb25zIHRoYXQgY2FycnkgTlRQIHNlcnZlciBvciBTTlRQIHNlcnZlcgpsb2NhdGlvbi7CoCBUaGlzIG9wdGlvbiBNVVNUIGluY2x1ZGUgb25lLCBhbmQgb25seSBvbmUsIHRpbWUBMAEBAQE- X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.142.542 Message-ID: <1368784119.480.YahooMailNeo@web125503.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 02:48:39 -0700 (PDT) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois-Xavier_Le_Bail?= To: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 98.138.91.74 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: fx.lebail@yahoo.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 17 May 2013 11:42:34 +0000 Subject: [ntpwg] About RFC5908 X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois-Xavier_Le_Bail?= List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Hello, About RFC5908, "Network Time Protocol (NTP) Server Option for DHCPv6". Section 4 says: = The option itself does not contain any value.=A0 Instead, it contains one or several suboptions that carry NTP server or SNTP server location.=A0 This option MUST include one, and only one, time source suboption. = (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5908#section-4) It seems to me contradictory: - The option itself [...]. Instead, it contains one or several suboptions [= ...] - This option MUST include one, and only one, time source suboption. Did I miss anything? Best regards, Francois-Xavier le Bail _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Fri May 17 19:31:55 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26CDE21F905F for ; Fri, 17 May 2013 19:31:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sAOJ5s46ek4v for ; Fri, 17 May 2013 19:31:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F63D21F8FB3 for ; Fri, 17 May 2013 19:31:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00F4786DAB3 for ; Sat, 18 May 2013 02:31:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FD0C86D333 for ; Sat, 18 May 2013 02:31:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from static-108-1-143-98.bstnma.east.verizon.net ([108.1.143.98] helo=[10.10.10.102]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1UdWvc-0009G6-67; Sat, 18 May 2013 02:31:25 +0000 Message-ID: <5196E7F8.5030703@ntp.org> Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 22:31:20 -0400 From: Danny Mayer Organization: NTP User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois-Xavier_Le_Bail?= References: <1368784119.480.YahooMailNeo@web125503.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1368784119.480.YahooMailNeo@web125503.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 108.1.143.98 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: fx.lebail@yahoo.com, ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mayer@ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Cc: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" Subject: Re: [ntpwg] About RFC5908 X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: mayer@ntp.org List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org I think you might be better off asking in the DHCP working group since it's more about DHCP than NTP. Although I reviewed the document my review was more to do with how it impacts NTP rather than DHCP. Danny On 5/17/2013 5:48 AM, Fran=E7ois-Xavier Le Bail wrote: > Hello, > = > = > About RFC5908, "Network Time Protocol (NTP) Server Option for DHCPv6". > = > Section 4 says: = > The option itself does not contain any value. Instead, it contains > one or several suboptions that carry NTP server or SNTP server > location. This option MUST include one, and only one, time source > suboption. = > = > (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5908#section-4) > = > It seems to me contradictory: > - The option itself [...]. Instead, it contains one or several suboptions= [...] > - This option MUST include one, and only one, time source suboption. > = > Did I miss anything? > = > Best regards, > = > Francois-Xavier le Bail > _______________________________________________ > ntpwg mailing list > ntpwg@lists.ntp.org > http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg > = _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sat May 18 07:17:40 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 797B621F9133 for ; Sat, 18 May 2013 07:17:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.476 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.476 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.123, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jLimfeZ14qr4 for ; Sat, 18 May 2013 07:17:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 926B121F912C for ; Sat, 18 May 2013 07:17:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A9EF86D773 for ; Sat, 18 May 2013 14:17:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2415686D333 for ; Fri, 17 May 2013 16:29:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rfc-editor.org ([2001:1890:126c::1:2f]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1UdNWr-0006M6-Ab for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Fri, 17 May 2013 16:29:14 +0000 Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 7C5D06210B; Fri, 17 May 2013 09:28:52 -0700 (PDT) To: mills@udel.edu, jrmii@isc.org, jack.burbank@jhuapl.edu, william.kasch@jhuapl.edu, brian@innovationslab.net, ted.lemon@nominum.com, odonoghue@isoc.org From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20130517162852.7C5D06210B@rfc-editor.org> Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 09:28:52 -0700 (PDT) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:1890:126c::1:2f X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: wwwrun@rfc-editor.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 18 May 2013 14:13:54 +0000 Cc: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [ntpwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5905 (3627) X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5905, "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5905&eid=3627 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Tal Mizrahi Section: 7.5 Original Text ------------- In NTPv4, one or more extension fields can be inserted after the header and before the MAC, which is always present when an extension field is present. Corrected Text -------------- In NTPv4, one or more extension fields can be inserted after the header and before the MAC, if a MAC is present. If a MAC is not present, one or more extension fields can be inserted after the header, according to the following rules: o If the packet includes a single extension field, the length of the extension field MUST be at least 7 words, i.e., at least 28 octets. o If the packet includes more than one extension field, the length of the last extension field MUST be at least 28 octets. The length of the other extension fields in this case MUST be at least 16 octets each. Notes ----- The usage of NTP extension fields without authentication is aligned with Section 10 of RFC 5906: The extension field parser initializes a pointer to the first octet beyond the NTP packet header and calculates the number of octets remaining to the end of the packet If the remaining length is 20 (128-bit digest plus 4-octet key ID) or 22 (160-bit digest plus 4-octet key ID), the remaining data are the MAC and parsing is complete. If the remaining length is greater than 22, an extension field is present. If the remaining length is less than 8 or not a multiple of 4, a format error has occurred and the packet is discarded; otherwise, the parser increments the pointer by the extension field length and then uses the same rules as above to determine whether a MAC is present or another extension field. Instructions: ------------- This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC5905 (draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-proto-13) -------------------------------------- Title : Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification Publication Date : June 2010 Author(s) : D. Mills, J. Martin, Ed., J. Burbank, W. Kasch Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Network Time Protocol Area : Internet Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Tue May 21 00:29:57 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0703E21F9075 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 00:29:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2K6y6N-+95tL for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 00:29:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 122D021F9003 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 00:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9716986DABD for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 07:29:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6066386D4E3 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 07:02:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rrzmta2.uni-regensburg.de ([194.94.155.52]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1UegaV-000KQP-3o for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Tue, 21 May 2013 07:02:25 +0000 Received: from rrzmta2.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 93DA223F04 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 09:02:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.5.51]) by rrzmta2.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5707B23F13 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 09:02:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 21 May 2013 09:00:59 +0200 Message-Id: <519B3813020000A100010F04@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 12.0.2 Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 09:02:11 +0200 From: "Ulrich Windl" To: ,, , , , , , References: <20130517162852.7C5D06210B@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: <20130517162852.7C5D06210B@rfc-editor.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 194.94.155.52 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Cc: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Subject: [ntpwg] Antw: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5905 (3627) X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org >>> RFC Errata System schrieb am 17.05.2013 um 18:28 in Nachricht <20130517162852.7C5D06210B@rfc-editor.org>: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5905, > "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5905&eid=3627 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Tal Mizrahi > > Section: 7.5 > > Original Text > ------------- > In NTPv4, one or more extension fields can be inserted after the header and > before the MAC, which is always present when an extension field is present. > > Corrected Text > -------------- > In NTPv4, one or more extension fields can be inserted after the header and > before the MAC, if a MAC is present. If a MAC is not present, one or more Hi! Wouldn't the phrase "In NTPv4, one or more extension fields can be inserted after the header and before the optional MAC. " be more simple? > extension fields can be inserted after the header, according to the following > rules: > > o If the packet includes a single extension field, the length of the > extension field MUST be at least 7 words, i.e., at least 28 octets. > > o If the packet includes more than one extension field, the length of the > last extension field MUST be at least 28 octets. The length of the other > extension fields in this case MUST be at least 16 octets each. > > > > Notes > ----- > The usage of NTP extension fields without authentication is aligned with > Section 10 of RFC 5906: > > > > The extension field parser initializes a pointer to the first octet beyond > the NTP packet header and calculates the number of octets remaining to the > end of the packet If the remaining length is 20 (128-bit digest plus 4-octet > key ID) or 22 (160-bit digest plus 4-octet key ID), the remaining data are the > MAC and parsing is complete. If the remaining length is greater than 22, an > extension field is present. If the remaining length is less than 8 or not a > multiple of 4, a format error has occurred and the packet is discarded; > otherwise, the parser increments the pointer by the extension field length > and then uses the same rules as above to determine whether a MAC is present > or another extension field. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC5905 (draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-proto-13) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and > Algorithms Specification > Publication Date : June 2010 > Author(s) : D. Mills, J. Martin, Ed., J. Burbank, W. Kasch > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Network Time Protocol > Area : Internet > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > _______________________________________________ > ntpwg mailing list > ntpwg@lists.ntp.org > http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Tue May 21 01:14:52 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB9C121F8D70 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 01:14:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DWl6OE9vXsWv for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 01:14:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F166D21F8D41 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 01:14:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44FA186D78A for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 08:14:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96CE686D4E3 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 07:44:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nm39-vm3.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ([98.138.229.163]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1UehFK-000Kcd-DJ for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Tue, 21 May 2013 07:44:35 +0000 Received: from [98.138.90.56] by nm39.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 May 2013 07:44:28 -0000 Received: from [98.138.89.165] by tm9.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 May 2013 07:44:28 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1021.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 May 2013 07:44:28 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 417004.4978.bm@omp1021.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 50536 invoked by uid 60001); 21 May 2013 07:44:28 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1369122268; bh=V2AZdLP/lTvdDuSR6lzmaesNF9o7pnfj9HehPzhdofE=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=g+/Y7NUAPdfY4qZw0IIqjv+3uvFX0qVL9THhKlfb8SQL6jm99bgggMO//msS2doD6u+W/shHKNG3D5rYfsalJ43Mzg11fTbS884+hGyLTka8/oSyb51U+9n8ty37Uvcu1CTd9bCZN90zneAZ+8J0zrg4QAiKyKH96ni9aPsOhrc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=jh8Kuq7yWgXlP6KhSXC3HFndzGIz2aBsnfABwt2maAPtnK9bHFqhNuMZtxg3uUJTBmjkJC3F8N2ei2FDlWIzZWr0zSvlX380zreeXZ+Y3C9N068P43Umw9JBZsvdgPx5evhVWcLBZED+t3O6PWngeFtL0XkrWbZVsWf5NSN4xbY=; X-YMail-OSG: tuRtavYVM1l9LMhQe.uqSxBxthA2.4K9jA8CYA09rNdxTFA beOG1IrfK7whaBjbKwac5X.XFoBf1Ac7rryBtYGwewd_jZUjzzLLBVvxWbXX bb0kGpBBL9H6sL_ceQJTUTx8DrX_AA.xKAtEM1JbJCRh2.yPxl6n2Q3RpgSK EGOITD.vqwjkyYtImOrmlA2scghcENEgIWs6P9DwzYLqs2hbu0IzCZcWmb3i uXs_r4CmCPxD2_V_0mpSa2t4y7VjrJfUZ1TpExxwyFTNr5TbJISRuJKe_0NW IVjhcunvSyAu98hbNN3cR3fIBqVZ9VhnZUYismAATnW6yYAB4HEan5aGzSfC NWYAZb7BJaQtTjlTbFthgwaUt4mzD8sp_8aejAlhpeSYxRMm3VyJq3kDe54q eXajNzobi7kILFa281ZAjRxGfaBEgjV0AxylFjXAIiW1MFV2jgOQ._nVmDUp OeU3s.6AzuN20JxzGJB3BBuzLqFNffSd5YunX1b6lft1Xh1ddBePY8h_U6fT qJD0bF4WXqwSboTnU3j2lC1bg9i4AsIRi30I1VQ0Its4T7AxMZ4XHEqMsPx9 0rDTL1_vzR2T5UobivqokE1YAJQ-- Received: from [193.49.124.107] by web125506.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 21 May 2013 00:44:27 PDT X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001, W0FkZGluZyBkaGN3ZyBhbmQgUkZDIGF1dGhvcnNdCgoKSGVsbG8sCgpBYm91dCBSRkM1OTA4LCAiTmV0d29yayBUaW1lIFByb3RvY29sIChOVFApIFNlcnZlciBPcHRpb24gZm9yIERIQ1B2NiIuCgpTZWN0aW9uIDQgc2F5czogClRoZSBvcHRpb24gaXRzZWxmIGRvZXMgbm90IGNvbnRhaW4gYW55IHZhbHVlLsKgIEluc3RlYWQsIGl0IGNvbnRhaW5zCm9uZSBvciBzZXZlcmFsIHN1Ym9wdGlvbnMgdGhhdCBjYXJyeSBOVFAgc2VydmVyIG9yIFNOVFAgc2VydmVyCmxvY2F0aW9uLsKgIFRoaXMgb3B0aW9uIE1VU1QBMAEBAQE- X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.142.542 Message-ID: <1369122267.50197.YahooMailNeo@web125506.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 00:44:27 -0700 (PDT) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois-Xavier_Le_Bail?= To: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" , "dhcwg@ietf.org" , "richard.gayraud@free.fr" , "blourdel@cisco.com" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 98.138.229.163 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: fx.lebail@yahoo.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: [ntpwg] Question about RFC5908 X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois-Xavier_Le_Bail?= List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org [Adding dhcwg and RFC authors] Hello, About RFC5908, "Network Time Protocol (NTP) Server Option for DHCPv6". Section 4 says: = The option itself does not contain any value.=A0 Instead, it contains one or several suboptions that carry NTP server or SNTP server location.=A0 This option MUST include one, and only one, time source suboption. = (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5908#section-4) It seems to me contradictory: - The option itself [...]. Instead, it contains one or several suboptions [= ...] - This option MUST include one, and only one, time source suboption. Did I miss something ? Best regards, Francois-Xavier le Bail _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Tue May 21 08:44:27 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C752921F974A for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 08:44:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.408 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.408 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o-dyl6EWFi-R for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 08:44:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A02E721F9779 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 08:44:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D4FC86DAEB for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 15:44:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF95486D4E3 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 15:18:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from exprod7og103.obsmtp.com ([64.18.2.159]) by mail1.ntp.org with smtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1UeoKL-0001fk-5N for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Tue, 21 May 2013 15:18:13 +0000 Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob103.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUZuQNJNrFTGUZ/Go6+uMTNRc/UaQTGSD@postini.com; Tue, 21 May 2013 08:18:13 PDT Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B51F1B819C for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 08:18:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4328119005D; Tue, 21 May 2013 08:18:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 21 May 2013 08:18:12 -0700 From: Ted Lemon To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois-Xavier_Le_Bail?= Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Question about RFC5908 Thread-Index: AQHOVfcNOh5dwhGRWkCEBIrpTVG/3ZkQNjqA Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 15:18:11 +0000 Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751AAF97@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> References: <1369122267.50197.YahooMailNeo@web125506.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1369122267.50197.YahooMailNeo@web125506.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10] Content-ID: <7D2F93CEF1B83546AF73029A293A5F39@nominum.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 64.18.2.159 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: Ted.Lemon@nominum.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Cc: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" , "dhcwg@ietf.org" , "blourdel@cisco.com" , "richard.gayraud@free.fr" Subject: Re: [ntpwg] [dhcwg] Question about RFC5908 X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org On May 21, 2013, at 3:44 AM, Fran=E7ois-Xavier Le Bail wrote: > It seems to me contradictory: > - The option itself [...]. Instead, it contains one or several suboptions= [...] > - This option MUST include one, and only one, time source suboption. > = > Did I miss something ? Yes. The point is that the option can only contain one suboption in the s= et (server-addr, multicast-addr, server-fqdn). There can be more than one= of these options, and so there can be more than one source suboption in th= e DHCPv6 packet: one for each such option. _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Wed May 22 06:58:56 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D99721F91A3 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 06:58:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FRZamPu-ScL3 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 06:58:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81D1321F9593 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 06:58:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24ADC86DAEA for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 13:58:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DBB886D52B for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 13:58:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nm35-vm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ([98.138.229.97]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Uf9Yl-000E0b-46 for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 22 May 2013 13:58:33 +0000 Received: from [98.138.90.51] by nm35.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 May 2013 13:58:25 -0000 Received: from [98.138.87.9] by tm4.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 May 2013 13:58:25 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1009.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 May 2013 13:58:25 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 107294.44702.bm@omp1009.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 92942 invoked by uid 60001); 22 May 2013 13:58:25 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1369231104; bh=pouWjFhIutEvVaOY3hivsJUnF0n/dkfHNMFlCDab9mI=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=lSfEDVKu46aSZR9D08dd2vOqNTotGURe8LmIqUyP8SlOktNH3fL4/vHB6071IND0u5cRzOHgMqnFcXuF5Im1sK4ZVvyQtgpTlK4c1BJ2Zf2CbCrStrxnnFNvDcxrMyP8DzCXEBBw/wznrtSvMnScUKmV3E7nDR1MxONQx0YWzFM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=aB8Cc0hqtdRlCY8z5kssAHwyrbb7apJ30jwEAe/AdOLaSARAaug84GQOB57ola93FIuQpWnmdBf+sRd6NNBKAlZLVZwOK2hgr7A6Q2kijtAZ3Lm3M16yKTUQItLrLvNXqf+Ri52WEO1loB4TojwrQNS7aMPRVRw7Hb3lNerbIeY=; X-YMail-OSG: 1lYbpCIVM1kWS95.U.ngcgyVNRyXc.9cyoKJY_k4pskvhNM _MvtPmgtZzX6txmfDkMSdWcPrp2B2ikM_wr0RMfLktonzz3xE2pPs0uemN3r ar6yOiqvuJ3nnG6TBi_XDhO3kKc.i_cO64SdwMFj.E19ohbQIIlpRIM9.XWV A5dA27htl60oE0RGnsQxRQpGa8Q0G8KyzJ0k3jwuYwt_CSHS1sk348OqocEa 2g5J10.0Jku3Be7nugQifuYEJCpAse4BRCzjLq7pmD7iC8Ab05taqwUGRdbF esW.1q.Qd.1XV8dXIsTMx_tn5ZQfIDP.rtSVxRgbnvZ0l2SoKxu2l_V6nHlt gllEEGG3YF1oVNRafjy3TU6pk5dMaNFWpIcnyDBx6ScjHFXqWLTJ9tKrLySE zHCaY5TaGT_WfkrRzLgTK7YHlyzInDqzsqlf7f_4MicWl1BQnaq6ebgTakD7 zlij5ZvdrzaQXGcWuADD.pJ6jZ.gij3UdRaf1nsZfP0rCJ6b_KbiCayTC8Au AiKMpqdl8jksRiAOZgOQJY9NwRE4JVmJ02vlGeK4- Received: from [193.49.124.107] by web125503.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 22 May 2013 06:58:24 PDT X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001, LS0tLS0gT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZSAtLS0tLQoKPiBGcm9tOiBUZWQgTGVtb24gPFRlZC5MZW1vbkBub21pbnVtLmNvbT4KPiBUbzogRnJhbsOnb2lzLVhhdmllciBMZSBCYWlsIDxmeC5sZWJhaWxAeWFob28uY29tPgo.IENjOiAibnRwd2dAbGlzdHMubnRwLm9yZyIgPG50cHdnQGxpc3RzLm50cC5vcmc.OyAiZGhjd2dAaWV0Zi5vcmciIDxkaGN3Z0BpZXRmLm9yZz47ICJyaWNoYXJkLmdheXJhdWRAZnJlZS5mciIgPHJpY2hhcmQuZ2F5cmF1ZEBmcmVlLmZyPjsgImJsb3VyZGVsQGNpc2NvLmNvbSIgPGJsb3UBMAEBAQE- X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.142.542 References: <1369122267.50197.YahooMailNeo@web125506.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751AAF97@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> Message-ID: <1369231104.81780.YahooMailNeo@web125503.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 06:58:24 -0700 (PDT) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois-Xavier_Le_Bail?= To: Ted Lemon In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751AAF97@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 98.138.229.97 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: fx.lebail@yahoo.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Cc: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" , "dhcwg@ietf.org" , "blourdel@cisco.com" , "richard.gayraud@free.fr" Subject: Re: [ntpwg] [dhcwg] Question about RFC5908 X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois-Xavier_Le_Bail?= List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ted Lemon > To: Fran=E7ois-Xavier Le Bail > Cc: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" ; "dhcwg@ietf.org" ; "richard.gayraud@free.fr" ; "blourdel@c= isco.com" > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:18 PM > Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Question about RFC5908 > = > On May 21, 2013, at 3:44 AM, Fran=E7ois-Xavier Le Bail = > wrote: >> It seems to me contradictory: >> - The option itself [...]. Instead, it contains one or several suboptio= ns = > [...] >> - This option MUST include one, and only one, time source suboption. >> = >> Did I miss something ? > = > Yes.=A0 The point is that the option can only contain one suboption in t= he set = > (server-addr, multicast-addr, server-fqdn).=A0 There can be more than on= e of = > these options, and so there can be more than one source suboption in the = DHCPv6 = > packet: one for each such option I think the text is not clear: Why not : This option MUST include one, and only one, time source suboption type ? _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Wed May 22 09:41:41 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D165721F9655 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 09:41:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.4 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.101, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6DlqM6mRBWm4 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 09:41:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 253BA21F9630 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 09:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C21D986DAD7 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 16:41:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D4C86D52B for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 16:41:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from exprod7og106.obsmtp.com ([64.18.2.165]) by mail1.ntp.org with smtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1UfC6H-000EtF-Be for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 22 May 2013 16:41:18 +0000 Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob106.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUZz1LFYpfwfCS7XqDVArxnRr2tPogs3W@postini.com; Wed, 22 May 2013 09:41:17 PDT Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 567191B8197 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 09:41:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DFA719005D; Wed, 22 May 2013 09:41:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 22 May 2013 09:41:16 -0700 From: Ted Lemon To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois-Xavier_Le_Bail?= Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Question about RFC5908 Thread-Index: AQHOVfcNOh5dwhGRWkCEBIrpTVG/3ZkQNjqAgAF8CgCAAC2AgA== Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 16:41:16 +0000 Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751AD00C@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> References: <1369122267.50197.YahooMailNeo@web125506.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751AAF97@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <1369231104.81780.YahooMailNeo@web125503.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1369231104.81780.YahooMailNeo@web125503.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10] Content-ID: <0E8117774C19704390A79CF275311115@nominum.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 64.18.2.165 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: Ted.Lemon@nominum.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Cc: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" , "dhcwg@ietf.org" , "blourdel@cisco.com" , "richard.gayraud@free.fr" Subject: Re: [ntpwg] [dhcwg] Question about RFC5908 X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org On May 22, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Fran=E7ois-Xavier Le Bail wrote: > This option MUST include one, and only one, time source suboption type ? No, this would be less correct, because you are now allowing for two time s= ource options of the same type, which the current document (I believe corre= ctly) forbids. _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Wed May 22 10:25:41 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB81511E80FB for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:25:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WcWWZx4ONH2A for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:25:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99CFF11E80EA for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:25:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1643586DADA for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 17:25:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E0EF86D52B for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 17:25:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from exprod7og109.obsmtp.com ([64.18.2.171]) by mail1.ntp.org with smtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1UfCn0-000FAh-Jz for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 22 May 2013 17:25:28 +0000 Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob109.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUZz/ht8ELDlSqH2mU4wBKrpWA96OBHEA@postini.com; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:25:26 PDT Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D062F1B8197 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:25:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C60C619005D; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:25:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:25:21 -0700 From: Ted Lemon To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Question about RFC5908 Thread-Index: AQHOVfcNOh5dwhGRWkCEBIrpTVG/3ZkQNjqAgAF8CgCAABnegIAAH/MA Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 17:25:21 +0000 Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751AD1E1@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> References: <1369122267.50197.YahooMailNeo@web125506.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751AAF97@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>, <1369231104.81780.YahooMailNeo@web125503.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C556A17-243B-4748-AE87-3272F1C62281@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4C556A17-243B-4748-AE87-3272F1C62281@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10] Content-ID: <56FCC61396B7B240A0878B70D9F8DBF3@nominum.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 64.18.2.171 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: Ted.Lemon@nominum.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Cc: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" , "dhcwg@ietf.org" , "blourdel@cisco.com" , "richard.gayraud@free.fr" Subject: Re: [ntpwg] [dhcwg] Question about RFC5908 X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org On May 22, 2013, at 11:30 AM, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote: > You can always file an errata. An erratum, some errata. But please don't, because you are mistaken about this (or at least, you have failed to explain why you are not mistaken). _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Wed May 22 10:45:33 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88FB621F85C9 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:45:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.551 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.048, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GA0yLxB7z6Hm for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:45:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60B8A21F9048 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:45:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3DE186DAFB for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 17:45:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAA4B86D52B for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 17:45:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from exprod7og129.obsmtp.com ([64.18.2.122]) by mail1.ntp.org with smtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1UfD66-000FI0-VW for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 22 May 2013 17:45:11 +0000 Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob129.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUZ0EJu3WtzWCzcXDEVa29hYkRG3jBhOA@postini.com; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:45:10 PDT Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E72E1B819D for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:45:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3589719005D; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:45:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:45:10 -0700 From: Ted Lemon To: Andre Kostur Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Question about RFC5908 Thread-Index: AQHOVfcNOh5dwhGRWkCEBIrpTVG/3ZkQNjqAgAF8CgCAABnegIAAH/MAgAADuYCAAAHPAA== Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 17:45:09 +0000 Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751AD3DF@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> References: <1369122267.50197.YahooMailNeo@web125506.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751AAF97@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <1369231104.81780.YahooMailNeo@web125503.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C556A17-243B-4748-AE87-3272F1C62281@cisco.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751AD1E1@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10] Content-ID: <068F5F04AB105049A05AB053C426558B@nominum.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 64.18.2.122 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: Ted.Lemon@nominum.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Cc: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" , "dhcwg@ietf.org" , "richard.gayraud@free.fr" , "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" , "blourdel@cisco.com" Subject: Re: [ntpwg] [dhcwg] Question about RFC5908 X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org On May 22, 2013, at 1:38 PM, Andre Kostur wrote: > I do see where there may be multiple instances of 56 (both sections 4 > & 5 acknowledge this), and an instance of 56 may contain multiple > sub-options (section 4, and the diagram of option 56 acknowledge > this). I do think that the phrasing of "This option MUST include one, > and only one, time source suboption." is ambiguous and does appear to > directly contradict the previous statement "Instead, it contains one > or several suboptions that carry...". No, it doesn't, because not all suboptions are time source suboptions. _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Wed May 22 11:19:51 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 421E221F8EF2 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:19:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.552 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y+bNMO-lQX26 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:19:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0209F21F8EEA for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:19:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F28186DAE6 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 18:19:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57CD286D4E3 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 18:19:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from exprod7og128.obsmtp.com ([64.18.2.121]) by mail1.ntp.org with smtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1UfDdQ-000FTi-EG for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 22 May 2013 18:19:37 +0000 Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob128.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUZ0MNy8Hij08JvlrURZnRu0sBNdMJWkb@postini.com; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:19:36 PDT Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB1651B81B2 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACD7C19005D; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:19:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:19:35 -0700 From: Ted Lemon To: Andre Kostur Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Question about RFC5908 Thread-Index: AQHOVfcNOh5dwhGRWkCEBIrpTVG/3ZkQNjqAgAF8CgCAABnegIAAH/MAgAADuYCAAAHPAIAAAfoAgAAHpQA= Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 18:19:35 +0000 Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751AD4F5@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> References: <1369122267.50197.YahooMailNeo@web125506.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751AAF97@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <1369231104.81780.YahooMailNeo@web125503.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C556A17-243B-4748-AE87-3272F1C62281@cisco.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751AD1E1@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751AD3DF@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10] Content-ID: <4F16AD4C2B9F934DBD45ED074C369E39@nominum.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 64.18.2.121 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: Ted.Lemon@nominum.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Cc: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" , "dhcwg@ietf.org" , "richard.gayraud@free.fr" , "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" , "blourdel@cisco.com" Subject: Re: [ntpwg] [dhcwg] Question about RFC5908 X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org On May 22, 2013, at 1:52 PM, Andre Kostur wrote: > So it's trying to acknowledge that there may be a bunch of other, > unrelated suboptions stuck into this option? Wait... are we possibly > arguing over a typo? If we re-read the problematic statement as > "Instead, it contains one _of_ several suboptions that carry..." that > seems to make more sense. It might have been better to say "one or more," but the meaning of the sentence is correct, and your proposed change would make it incorrect. The option can contain any number of suboptions greater than zero. Exactly one of those suboptions can be a time source suboption. That's what the text says, and that's what the text was intended to say. There is no error or ambiguity here. _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Wed May 22 13:24:41 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D854A11E80FB for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 13:24:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.553 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RaSb2ijAex87 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 13:24:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E6AA21F94DF for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 13:24:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6C3986DAA9 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 20:24:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0350A86D4E3 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 20:24:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from exprod7og128.obsmtp.com ([64.18.2.121]) by mail1.ntp.org with smtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1UfFZy-000GCa-Mp for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 22 May 2013 20:24:11 +0000 Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob128.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUZ0patlJ7TfvePwJDpBG6kI0gYv1Wu8w@postini.com; Wed, 22 May 2013 13:24:10 PDT Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14DDF1B8197 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 13:24:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0874D19005D; Wed, 22 May 2013 13:24:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 22 May 2013 13:24:03 -0700 From: Ted Lemon To: Andre Kostur Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Question about RFC5908 Thread-Index: AQHOVfcNOh5dwhGRWkCEBIrpTVG/3ZkQNjqAgAF8CgCAABnegIAAH/MAgAADuYCAAAHPAIAAAfoAgAAHpQCAABWygIAADRUA Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 20:24:03 +0000 Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751AD858@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> References: <1369122267.50197.YahooMailNeo@web125506.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751AAF97@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <1369231104.81780.YahooMailNeo@web125503.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C556A17-243B-4748-AE87-3272F1C62281@cisco.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751AD1E1@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751AD3DF@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751AD4F5@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10] Content-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 64.18.2.121 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: Ted.Lemon@nominum.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Cc: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" , "dhcwg@ietf.org" , "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" , "richard.gayraud@free.fr" Subject: Re: [ntpwg] [dhcwg] Question about RFC5908 X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org On May 22, 2013, at 3:37 PM, Andre Kostur wrote: > What other suboptions can it be? Right now no non-time source suboptions are defined. I don't know what the authors had in mind for this, TBH, but I'm pretty sure that the intent of the text that you see there was to allow for multiple suboptions, as long as only one was a time source option. If you want to open a can of worms here, the fact is that this option specification is badly broken, not only because it is the only option definition for IPv6 that uses suboptions, but as written, there is no value to the suboptions. The reason it's broken in this way is that the NTP working group disregarded substantial comment from the DHC working group. Personally, I think (ad hat off) that the DHC working group should just define a new NTP option and deprecate this one. There is no excuse for something as basic as configuring an NTP server to be so complicated. _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sat May 25 09:27:40 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 427E921F8717 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 09:27:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.647 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.647 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.744, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BWrKxLA8sOSD for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 09:27:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7248621F8CF4 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 09:27:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27B3F86DAB2 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 16:27:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7380686D4E1 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 16:27:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nm5-vm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ([98.138.91.32]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1UgHJJ-00010i-KC for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Sat, 25 May 2013 16:27:18 +0000 Received: from [98.138.90.48] by nm5.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 May 2013 16:27:07 -0000 Received: from [98.138.89.161] by tm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 May 2013 16:27:07 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1017.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 May 2013 16:27:07 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 522260.89972.bm@omp1017.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 51498 invoked by uid 60001); 25 May 2013 16:27:07 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1369499227; bh=OoSURLxRxwu3YVe0RLmhlxc3hA18tTcuRIdqUvNsGuI=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=tIh+ZXfNhn7j6T07b0nBgkts/AktJNeXKhS3byA95nfoi9G+gcL4G92Y1PzpDhjPcDm05JE9vV5/j8FYLRilbCNPKx8YMcSmG8HuGmHqBqFNzn++jnoJ+t0OBgL1mo/kfpkzhcbM249i1vN0XugAgou1RGDl+5wIIO8W9xRf9UQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=TSbxykvMxjoV8KRVGUjn478ZUgI0wk7K4PKWT675IdQNku5nTR0qBUYt+7efPN+iDUWARNoedkgaZcSuJxTQ/xKPrcc3rN+VXEyH3QKz2LHK7f0W9YPOS8IHJDrZujcdc3t3eL5nqAFSPQO0mG4bJOyB6JcsKf4ctFmJ0oNY9vg=; X-YMail-OSG: bCSXMSEVM1lOdgXEIDT06q5RWqG9cQ8nRCHSFE4pDOOzsoE zP9R4gyo5dazEeoXeDO6ppZtaKQr7FVkCEY0kC4oQdXvsi3XZxtCTmeFTdSr t3bV_Fy8Opl5LJLcAGSc3FGTDKkaj5UB6xH1dymHbkSEYt6d7m4RaPhNmlco TlBRP3AQzawNLnARtEUsFLESxmBDw_w6Y4orShtQDkUx0oovLMl.ilY.QOxA nir5vU8dTeD1AUWYKLjXWsxGA8NK4RUh73YRx4axJrSJ_eO8ebT0X2YYABT_ HgDDZHY6JZoMQodZijJUW82_3mO8tY8sNNOPGBC1N6SWYmONI4XnbHQsplJs fkgXpRYqrP82Pam13q2VaWTwweicgI2YFgo6iix0fe.K6ibGupmab0UUulXX AiEnsuqmSxQyMJRo4l3d6Ti5AZm2Ykd_tMaymuS0xX5ZoEY2K325EvZThFuf gmPfST03mX5L7sivPsAhD4a75_Gx1SWlrTuGj0qfj_8lSR477MM0Frkl2oA2 5qD7HD7U6RjU0u4bGAYGTMv700nQSfxECH6H1YQ-- Received: from [2.11.110.162] by web125505.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 25 May 2013 09:27:07 PDT X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001, PiBUaGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGlzIHJlYWxseSBiYWQgYW5kIGl0IGlzIHRvbyBiYWQgaXQgc2xpcHBlZCB0aHJvdWdoIHRoZSBjcmFja3MuCgoKKzEBMAEBAQE- X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.144.546 References: <1369122267.50197.YahooMailNeo@web125506.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751AAF97@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <1369231104.81780.YahooMailNeo@web125503.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C556A17-243B-4748-AE87-3272F1C62281@cisco.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751AD1E1@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751AD3DF@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751AD4F5@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E18569437@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> Message-ID: <1369499227.51115.YahooMailNeo@web125505.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 09:27:07 -0700 (PDT) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois-Xavier_Le_Bail?= To: "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" , Andre Kostur , Ted Lemon In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E18569437@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 98.138.91.32 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: fx.lebail@yahoo.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Cc: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" , "dhcwg@ietf.org" , "blourdel@cisco.com" , "richard.gayraud@free.fr" Subject: Re: [ntpwg] [dhcwg] Question about RFC5908 X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois-Xavier_Le_Bail?= List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org > This document is really bad and it is too bad it slipped through the cracks. +1 _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Tue May 28 09:29:50 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D678121F9880 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 09:29:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YPoZOoTlvd5I for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 09:29:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35D1621F987B for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 09:29:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DDBB86DAB3 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 16:29:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C37FC86D4E1 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 16:29:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from na3sys009aog138.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.19]) by mail1.ntp.org with smtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1UhMli-000B6c-Gp for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 16:29:03 +0000 Received: from SC-OWA01.marvell.com ([199.233.58.136]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob138.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUaTbTVBrSMXFNUlgmYSpxlfXBWSZxYyR@postini.com; Tue, 28 May 2013 09:29:02 PDT Received: from YK-HUB01.marvell.com (10.4.102.51) by sc-owa01.marvell.com (10.93.76.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 28 May 2013 09:26:27 -0700 Received: from IL-MB01.marvell.com ([10.4.102.53]) by YK-HUB01.marvell.com ([10.4.102.51]) with mapi; Tue, 28 May 2013 19:26:23 +0300 From: Tal Mizrahi To: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" , "tictoc@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 19:26:21 +0300 Thread-Topic: New Draft: draft-mizrahi-ntp-checksum-trailer-00 Thread-Index: Ac5btEGDQDG64m0sTQeWddbTHo6PCQ== Message-ID: <74470498B659FA4687F0B0018C19A89C01A0F9C9380F@IL-MB01.marvell.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 74.125.149.19 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: talmi@marvell.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: [ntpwg] New Draft: draft-mizrahi-ntp-checksum-trailer-00 X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1489683795735616359==" Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org --===============1489683795735616359== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_74470498B659FA4687F0B0018C19A89C01A0F9C9380FILMB01marve_" --_000_74470498B659FA4687F0B0018C19A89C01A0F9C9380FILMB01marve_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, History: - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mizrahi-tictoc-checksum-trailer= -00 Originally submitted to TICTOC in 2011, and discussed checksum trailers for= both NTP and OWAMP/TWAMP. - There was some discussion in the mailing list: http://www.ietf.o= rg/mail-archive/web/ntp/current/msg00492.html - Some discussion in IETF 81: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/tictoc/minu= tes?item=3Dminutes81.html Current version: - Split into 2 drafts. There are some similarities, but still it i= s more appropriate to discuss it as two separate drafts: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mizrahi-ntp-checksum-trailer-00 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mizrahi-owamp-twamp-checksum-trailer-00 - [NTP draft] Clarified the usage of the NTP extension field witho= ut authentication. Comments will be appreciated. Thanks, Tal. --_000_74470498B659FA4687F0B0018C19A89C01A0F9C9380FILMB01marve_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

 

History:

-     &n= bsp;    = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mizrahi-tictoc-checksum-trailer-00
= Originally submitted to TICTOC in 2011, and discussed checksum trailers for= both NTP and OWAMP/TWAMP.

-&nb= sp;         There was some discussion in the mailing list: http= ://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ntp/current/msg00492.html

-       = ;   Some discussio= n in IETF 81: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/tictoc/minutes?item=3Dminutes81.html<= /a>

 

Current version:

- &n= bsp;        Split into 2 drafts. There are some similarities, but st= ill it is more appropriate to discuss it as two separate drafts:=

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mizrahi-= ntp-checksum-trailer-00
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-m= izrahi-owamp-twamp-checksum-trailer-00

-          <= /span>[NTP draft] Clarified the usage of t= he NTP extension field without authentication.

 

Comments will be app= reciated.

 

Thanks,

Tal.

= --_000_74470498B659FA4687F0B0018C19A89C01A0F9C9380FILMB01marve_-- --===============1489683795735616359== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg --===============1489683795735616359==--