Subject: [ntpwg] NTP V4 draft change

From: Danny Mayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:39:09 -0500

In discussing the KoD packets with Dave Mills I looked at the NTP v4
spec and I think we need to add a sentence like the following in Section
7.4:

"The Receive Timestamp and the Transmit Timestamp (set by the server)
are undefined when in a KoD packet and MUST NOT be relied upon to have
valid values and MUST be discarded."

I'd like to amend the draft with this change. Does anyone have issues
with this language or similar language if it needs to be made clearer?

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

---

From: "David L. Mills" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 04:37:30 +0000

Danny,

Not quite.

"The Receive Timestamp and the Transmit Timestamp (set by the server) 
are undefined when in a KoD packet and may have been modified by the 
server to cause major erros and discourage futher traffic. The client 
MAY use the values at considerable risk."

---

From: Danny Mayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 23:49:52 -0500

> MAY use the values at considerable risk."

No Dave, that's contradictory. You cannot say the they may use the values.

Danny

---

From: "David L. Mills" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 05:10:41 +0000

Danny,

It's not worth a pissing contest on this issue, but I do have 
reservations about saying you MUST NOT do this. The first thing the 
stupid does is DO this. There needs to be a carrot/stick equillibrium 
here. It must be worth the stupid's design plan to NOT do this.

Dave

---

From: Danny Mayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:25:45 -0500

So let's just say that they are undefined in a KoD packet and leave it
at that without saying DO's and DON'T's.

Danny

---

From: Brian Utterback <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 07:51:40 -0500

So how about "SHOULD NOT"?