Subject: [ntpwg] KISS codes

From: mayer at gis.net (Danny Mayer)
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:52:13 -0400

Noone has commented on my recommendations for the KISS codes so I'm
sending it back out again. This is much more important than the
discussion on refid.

4) P24. Section 7.4 last sentence:
   Other than
   displaying the kiss code, KoD packets have no protocol significance
   and are discarded after inspection.

I'd like to see recipients of KISS codes take actions dependent on the
receipt of some of the codes. Practical experience has shown that the
operators of public servers need to be able to assert more control over
the clients that contact their servers. I'd like to therefore change
this sentence to read as follows:

   Recipients of kiss codes MUST inspect them and in the following cases
   take these actions:
   a) For kiss codes: DENY, RSTR the client MUST demobilize any
      associations to that server and stop sending packets to that
      server;
   b) For kiss code: RATE the client MUST immediately reduce its polling
      interval to that server and continue to reduce it each time it
      receives a RATE kiss code.
   c) Other than the above conditions, KoD packets have no protocol
      significance and are discarded after inspection.

---

From: heiko.gerstung at meinberg.de (Heiko Gerstung)
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:08:17 +0200

>       significance and are discarded after inspection.
Works for me. If we have the chance, we should try to enforce people to 
actually honor the KISS codes and Danny's proposal does exactly that. 
However, I could live with the existing version as well, since this is 
the status quo and in the real world those crazy clients are neither 
running NTPv4 nor do they care about RFCs ... *sigh*

Regards,
Heiko

---

From: mayer at gis.net (Danny Mayer)
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 08:44:25 -0400

> running NTPv4 nor do they care about RFCs ... *sigh*

The goal is to change the status quo and the servers that are making
their services available a chance to indicate to clients to change their
behavior. Having this embedded in an RFC is much better than having
nothing there at all. We are all aware of client behavior but we do need
to take the opportunity to try and influence it.

Danny