NTS: Client side, ask and require

[Gary E. Miller]

Yo Hal!

On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 15:51:12 -0800
Hal Murray via devel <devel at ntpsec.org> wrote:

> Gary said:
> > Yes, it is confisuing, that is why there way a proposal for a
> > different syntax that Eric vetoed.  You are making the exact
> > mistake we foresaw.  This will contoinue with the current syntax.   
> 
> Thanks.  Now that I understand the ideas, I'll see if I can clean up
> the wording.

I'd prefer to clean up the config syntax...

> > Uh, no.  Just the NTS-KE server name.  The default NTP server name
> > is whatever the NTS-KE server returns.  That is the Proposed RFC.   
> 
> That is optional.

If we want to be the canonical NTS-KE we need to implement it
all.

And only sort of optional.  Notice the 'should' in there.  Not sure
why it is not capitalized.  Also a SHALL.

> From 4.1.7, page 12
> 
> When NTPv4 is negotiated as a Next Protocol and this record is sent
> by the server, the body specifies the hostname or IP address of the
> NTPv4 server with which the client should associate and which will
> accept the supplied cookies. If no record of this type is sent, the
> client SHALL interpret this as a directive to associate with an NTPv4
> server at the same IP address as the NTS-KE server. Servers MUST NOT
> send more than one record of this type.



RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
	gem at rellim.com  Tel:+1 541 382 8588

	    Veritas liberabit vos. -- Quid est veritas?
    "If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it." - Lord Kelvin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 851 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ntpsec.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20190224/670c0462/attachment.bin>