[ntpwg] Issues with the NTP draft -06

[Brian Haberman]

Danny Mayer wrote:
> Brian Haberman wrote:
>> Danny Mayer wrote:
>>> Heiko Gerstung wrote:
>>>> I would say that the refid is no security related data object. I agree
>>>> that the MAC address and IP can change, but I do not see any bad
>>>> implications here, at least not for the operational status.
>>> I agree. I just want to get away from the idea that we SHOULD use IPv4
>>> addresses (or IPv6 addresses MD5-summed). Just because the reference
>>> implementation uses that doesn't mean that everyone else should do so.
>>> The value can be anything as long as it's relatively unique.
>> Given that the task at hand is documenting what NTPv4 is today, what
>> implementations *do not* use the IPv4 address or the hashed IPv6 address
>> as the refid?  I don't see the benefit of trying to retrofit this type
>> of change into the protocol spec trying to be advanced.
>>
> 
> Not quite. The task is to document what an implementor needs to do, not
> what the reference implementation does. I have no idea what other
> implementations do.

One of Heiko's notes stated that 100% of the implementations handle the
refid the way it is defined in the spec.  Sounds like a consensus to me.

Regards,
Brian