[ntpwg] Pending NTP WG Last Call on Autokey

[David L. Mills]

Danny,

I strongly disagree. If you want it private, define a type in my 
proposal that says the following is private.

Dave

Danny Mayer wrote:

> Dave,
>
> The problem that I'm trying to work around is that you put private 
> autokey data in a public place. That limits the usability of the 
> extension type field. The type/version/opcode encoding should reside 
> within the extension and not outside. This is what is creating the 
> ghetto not what I am suggesting. Doing whatever you want in a 
> particular field requires that you keep it private to the protocol 
> rather than public as you have done.
>
> It makes any future extensions difficult if not impossible and that's 
> what needs to be addressed.
>
> Danny
> David L. Mills wrote:
>
>> Danny,
>>
>> Don't fool with the length field. This goes cross puposes with other 
>> protocols such as IP and UDP. We are not going to see hundreds or 
>> even dozens of extension field types in NTP. What you suggest creates 
>> a ghetto for Autokey and does not provide a framework for 
>> type/version/opcode encoding. No proposal is complete without that 
>> encoding. The solution I proposed is completely adequate for whatever 
>> purpose extension fields might be used for; the implied generality is 
>> not worth the obscurity and incompatible model it creates.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> Danny Mayer wrote:
>>
>>> Dave,
>>>
>>> Absolutely not. We need to do this now before there are too many 
>>> implementations in the field. Do it now and get it over with.
>>>
>>> Danny
>>