Subject: [ntpwg] Jari Arkko's Yes on draft-ietf-ntp-extension-field-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Jari Arkko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 07:13:25 -0800

Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ntp-extension-field-06: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-extension-field/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for writing this much clarifying document!

I want to recommend its approval with a 'Yes' position, but before that I
had two issues / question which I believe would benefit from some
discussion:

Issue 1:

Suresh Krishnan's Gen-ART review raised a number of comments, and I
thought fixing this was important:

> I could not find the text in RFC5905 Section 7.5 that this draft says
it is
> replacing. Specifically the following "OLD:" text does not exist in
RFC5905

Can the authors comment on this and make any changes that might be
needed?

Issue 2:

Section 7.5.1.2 says:

   If an NTP packet is received with two or more extension fields that
   require a MAC with different algorithms, the packet MUST be
   discarded.

However, Section 7.5 already said earlier:

   If a host receives an
   extension field with an unknown Field Type, the host SHOULD ignore
   the extension field and MAY drop the packet altogether if policy
   requires it.

This leaves me wondering how the
MUST-drop-packet-with-fields-with-different-algs can be implemented. Did
you perhaps mean:

   If an NTP packet is received with two or more extension fields that
   this receiver recognises and those fields require a MAC with
   different algorithms, the packet MUST be discarded.

Or maybe something else? Can you clarify?

_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg