[ntpwg] [ntp:hackers] Pending NTP WG Last Call on Autokey

[Danny Mayer]

This is the way it should look according to my new scheme:

  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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|   Extension Identifier        |1|          Length             |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R|E|   Code    |Reserved | VN  |   Reserved - MUST be 0        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

For old autokey configurations it would look like this:

  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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R|E|   Code    |Reserved | VN  |0|          Length             |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Notice that bit 16 would be 0 anyway since the length is not currently 
that large.

Now we have privitized the autokey private information but still allow 
it to interoperate with the updated protocol.

Danny
David L. Mills wrote:
> Bian,
> 
> Oops, you found errors, both in the diagram and text describing the Code 
> field. The first word should be
> 
>  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
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |R|E|   Code    |Reserved | VN  |            Length             |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
> the text should be
> 
> <t>The 6-bit Code field specifies the request or response operation, 
> while the 3-bit Version Number (VN) field is 2 for the current protocol 
> version. There are two flag bits: bit 0 is the Response Flag (R) and bit 
> 1 is the Error Flag (E); the Reserved field is unused and should be set 
> to 0. The remaining fields will be described later.</t>
> 
> To reprise, the intent of my proposal is to use the Reserved field as a 
> type or class code, with autokey assigned class 0. If other than 0, the 
> bits other than the Reserved bits are arbitrary, but it is my hope that 
> they be interpreted in the same fashion in the interest of code reuse.
> 
> Dave
> 
> Brian Utterback wrote:
> 
>> I hate to enter the fray at this late date, but I only just got a 
>> chance to look at the autokey draft, and I am confused. During the 
>> course of this conversation, there was mention of taking a bit from 
>> the code field or the length field. In the draft it mentions that the 
>> code field is 8-bits and specifies the operation. But I cannot find 
>> either the code or the version field in the format diagram. Where is 
>> the code and version fields located?
>>
>> Brian Utterback
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> hackers mailing list
> hackers at lists.ntp.org
> https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/hackers
>