Subject: [Ntp] WGLC on draft-ietf-alternative-port-01

From: Karen O'Donoghue <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 13:36:03 +0000

NTP Working Group,

This email starts a two week working group last call (WGLC) on
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-alternative-port/

Please respond on the mailing list (keeping the subject line intact) with any comments you have on this document. Please also indicate your opinion on whether or not this document is sufficiently mature to advance to publication.

Regards,
Karen and Dieter

---

From: Miroslav Lichvar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 13:29:53 +0200

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-alternative-port/

One thing that I'd like to specifically ask everyone to consider
is the intended future of the alternative port. Do we expect NTP to
fully move there at some point and keep the port 123 only for legacy
implementations? Or should it always be just an alternative in case
the port 123 is not working?

The current version of the draft says the client SHOULD start with the
alternative port. If we don't want it to become the standard NTP port
in future, it might be better to start with 123.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar

---

From: Watson Ladd <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 22:08:24 -0700

> the port 123 is not working?

I do not think the situation with port 123 is salvageable. There is
too much blocking and other manipulation. I think this doc as is is
the only way forward.

--
Astra mortemque praestare gradatim

---

From: Danny Mayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 09:52:40 -0400

> too much blocking and other manipulation. I think this doc as is is

Using an alternative port will not fly. You need to remember that there 
are millions upon millions of devices out there that use port 123 for 
NTP. Don't expect them to change just because you wrote a document to 
say to use a different port. If you want to use a different port you may 
as well design a different protocol. The port number is baked in and all 
firewalls would need to be changed to accommodate this.

I will need to read the document again and decide on my vote. I don't 
think that the consequences have been thought through.

Danny

---

From: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 20:54:12 -0700

> think that the consequences have been thought through.

May I recommend that we request an early Transport Area Review for this
document?  I'm happy to click the button myself.  They might have some
thoughts/advice on these issues.