[ntpwg] Extension Field Format correction

[David L. Mills]

Danny,

That works.

Dave

Danny Mayer wrote:

>This is my correction to the extension field format defined in section 
>7.5, Figure 14. This should fix the problems previously discussed so 
>that Autokey fits correctly and others can develop their own extensions.
>
>        0                   1                   2                   3
>        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       | Private       | Field Type    |            Length             |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       .                                                               .
>       .                            Value                              .
>       .                                                               .
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |                       Padding (as needed)                     |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>                      Figure 14: Extension Field Format
>
>
>For the field type the values 0-7 are allocated to Autokey and will need 
>to be registered with INANA. Other values have not been allocated.
>
>Danny
>_______________________________________________
>ntpwg mailing list
>ntpwg at lists.ntp.org
>https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg
>