tlsport & ntpport

[Eric S. Raymond]

Richard Laager via devel <devel at ntpsec.org>:
> >>> Can anyone explain to me a case in which these are not
> >>> equivalent to expcit port prefixes on a server, ask, re require
> >>> address?
> >>
> >> Because the Proposed RFC says you can ask for an ntpport without
> >> asking for a ntpd address.
> > 
> > Cite?  I want to be certain there'a a MUST there before I buy the
> > complexity.  You have shown some tendency to overinterpret these
> > things.
> 
> 4.1.8.  NTPv4 Port Negotiation
> 
>    The NTPv4 Port Negotiation record has a Record Type number of 7.  Its
>    body consists of a 16-bit unsigned integer in network byte order,
>    denoting a UDP port number.

Why does this imply an option, though?  What is the use case for that
record?
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ntpsec.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20190202/670a2caa/attachment.bin>