[ntpwg] [dhcwg] NTP option for DHCPv6 [draft-gayraud-dhcpv6-ntp-opt-01.txt] posted

[Richard Gayraud (rgayraud)]

Hello Danny,

Thank you very much for your comments. Please see inline our reply.

Regards, 
Richard.

Danny Mayer (mayer at ntp.isc.org) wrote:
> Well my first question is why are you calling out NTPv4? Will 
> it break if it's v5? If so it's flawed. If not that should be 
> removed.

I think you are right. Do you think we should call out for "NTPv4 
or higher version", or simply "NTP" ? Given that this is running 
only on IPv6, so by definition, only for NTP >= 4 ?

> Second, how does this differ from the SNTP options in 
> RFC4075? Is there a reason that you know of that requires 
> that they be separate options? I can see no reason for both.
> 
> Danny

This differs from SNTP options by various things. One is the FQDN
capability. Another one is the use of sub-options that will enable
easier extendability.

But, the main point is the fact that RFC4075 advertise SNTP servers,
which are, by definition stratum-1 servers. This is not suitable
for the common case of client workstations on a LAN. Doing so would 
imply that these LANs would all have a local stratum-1 server.

This looks like a mistake in 4075, both in wording and intend. One
may want to deprecate 4075, but some people said at the last IETF 
that it could be of some use if someone wants to advertise SNTP 
stratum-1 servers via DHCP.