From info@bbc.co.uk Fri Feb 10 23:33:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 366ED21F8596 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:33:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -95.637 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-95.637 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.286, BAYES_60=1, GB_SUMOF=5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=2.077, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cjRDN--RXCUD for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:33:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from amanita.uvigo.es (amanita.uvigo.es [193.146.32.87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B04F721F85A0 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:33:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.uvigo.es ([193.146.32.124]) by amanita.uvigo.es with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Rw5qU-0005KF-7U; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:50:05 +0100 Received: from [193.147.87.7] (helo=correo.ei.uvigo.es) by smtp.uvigo.es with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Rw5qR-0004I8-CH; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:49:59 +0100 Received: from correo.ei.uvigo.es (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by correo.ei.uvigo.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62AEB26A014; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:47:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from 41.203.64.128 (SquirrelMail authenticated user gvgonzalez) by correo.ei.uvigo.es with HTTP; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:47:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <16592.41.203.64.128.1328939278.squirrel@correo.ei.uvigo.es> Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:47:58 +0100 (CET) Subject: !!!IMPORTANT NOTICE! From: "BBC NATIONAL LOTTERY" Reply-To: nationallotterybbc31@yahoo.com User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal To: undisclosed-recipients:; Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 193.147.87.7 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: info@bbc.co.uk X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on smtp.uvigo.es); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Uvigo-A-Spam_score: 2.1 X-Uvigo-A-Spam_score_int: 21 X-Uvigo-A-Spam_bar: ++ You have won the sum of =A3 1,000,000.00 (ONE MILLION BRITISH POUNDS STERLING) from BBC LOTTERY on our 2012 bonanza. Contact us back for more details on claims. From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Fri Feb 17 05:11:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4D9F21F87E2 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:11:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.417 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.417 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.182, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x-y1ufUYF2SX for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:11:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A337121F8744 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:11:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A578186DA16 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:11:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 313C186D4F0 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:17:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rfc-editor.org ([2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1RyCSL-0009CY-BF for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:17:58 +0000 Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 106C5B1E002; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:12:53 -0800 (PST) To: mills@udel.edu, jrmii@isc.org, jack.burbank@jhuapl.edu, william.kasch@jhuapl.edu, rdroms.ietf@gmail.com, jari.arkko@piuha.net, brian@innovationslab.net, odonoghue@isoc.org, brian@innovationslab.net From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20120217011253.106C5B1E002@rfc-editor.org> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:12:53 -0800 (PST) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:1890:123a::1:2f X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: wwwrun@rfc-editor.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:03:46 +0000 Cc: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org, rwalters@qualcomm.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [ntpwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5905 (3125) X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5905, "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5905&eid=3125 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Richard Walters Section: A.5.1.1 Original Text ------------- /* * Calculate offset, delay and dispersion, then pass to the * clock filter. Note carefully the implied processing. The * first-order difference is done directly in 64-bit arithmetic, * then the result is converted to floating double. All further * processing is in floating-double arithmetic with rounding * done by the hardware. This is necessary in order to avoid * overflow and preserve precision. * * The delay calculation is a special case. In cases where the * server and client clocks are running at different rates and * with very fast networks, the delay can appear negative. In * order to avoid violating the Principle of Least Astonishment, * the delay is clamped not less than the system precision. */ if (p->pmode == M_BCST) { offset = LFP2D(r->xmt - r->dst); delay = BDELAY; disp = LOG2D(r->precision) + LOG2D(s.precision) + PHI * 2 * BDELAY; } else { offset = (LFP2D(r->rec - r->org) + LFP2D(r->dst - r->xmt)) / 2; delay = max(LFP2D(r->dst - r->org) - LFP2D(r->rec - r->xmt), LOG2D(s.precision)); disp = LOG2D(r->precision) + LOG2D(s.precision) + PHI * LFP2D(r->dst - r->org); } clock_filter(p, offset, delay, disp); Corrected Text -------------- /* * Calculate offset, delay and dispersion, then pass to the * clock filter. Note carefully the implied processing. The * first-order difference is done directly in 64-bit arithmetic, * then the result is converted to floating double. All further * processing is in floating-double arithmetic with rounding * done by the hardware. This is necessary in order to avoid * overflow and preserve precision. * * The delay calculation is a special case. In cases where the * server and client clocks are running at different rates and * with very fast networks, the delay can appear negative. In * order to avoid violating the Principle of Least Astonishment, * the delay is clamped not less than the system precision. */ if (p->pmode == M_BCST) { offset = LFP2D(r->xmt - r->dst); delay = BDELAY; disp = LOG2D(r->precision) + LOG2D(s.precision) + PHI * 2 * BDELAY; } else { offset = (LFP2D(r->rec - r->org) + LFP2D(r->xmt - r->dst)) / 2; delay = max(LFP2D(r->dst - r->org) - LFP2D(r->xmt - r->rec), LOG2D(s.precision)); disp = LOG2D(r->precision) + LOG2D(s.precision) + PHI * LFP2D(r->dst - r->org); } clock_filter(p, offset, delay, disp); Notes ----- Calculations of 'offset' and 'delay' have terms that are incorrectly swapped. In the calculation of 'offset', term 'r->dst' should be 'r->xmt', and term 'r->xmt' should be 'r->dst'. In the calculation of 'delay', term 'r->rec' should be 'r->xmt', and term 'r->xmt' should be 'r->rec'. See the text from section 8: "In the figure, the first packet transmitted by A contains only the origin timestamp t1, which is then copied to T1. B receives the packet at t2 and copies t1 to T1 and the receive timestamp t2 to T2. At this time or some time later at t3, B sends a packet to A containing t1 and t2 and the transmit timestamp t3. All three timestamps are copied to the corresponding state variables. A receives the packet at t4 containing the three timestamps t1, t2, and t3 and the destination timestamp t4. These four timestamps are used to compute the offset and delay of B relative to A, as described below. ... "The four most recent timestamps, T1 through T4, are used to compute the offset of B relative to A theta = T(B) - T(A) = 1/2 * [(T2-T1) + (T3-T4)] and the round-trip delay delta = T(ABA) = (T4-T1) - (T3-T2)." Noting that, from the perspective of A at time t4: T1 = t1 = origin timestamp (r->org) T2 = t2 = receive timestamp (r->rec) T3 = t3 = transmit timestamp (r->xmt) T4 = t4 = destination timestamp (r->dst) An alternative correction would be to change the '+' to a '-' in the calculation of 'offset', and change the '-' to a '+' in the calculation of 'delay'. However, this would deviate from the operators used in the formulas from section 8. Instructions: ------------- This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC5905 (draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-proto-13) -------------------------------------- Title : Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification Publication Date : June 2010 Author(s) : D. Mills, J. Martin, Ed., J. Burbank, W. Kasch Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Network Time Protocol Area : Internet Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Fri Feb 17 05:12:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5F1021F87E1 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:12:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.43 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.169, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id arpVvCoVwnwi for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:12:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2068821F87CF for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:12:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B470986DA47 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:12:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF56686D4F0 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:58:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rfc-editor.org ([2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1RyD5s-000AC4-Cq for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:58:49 +0000 Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 14553B1E002; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:53:44 -0800 (PST) To: mills@udel.edu, jrmii@isc.org, jack.burbank@jhuapl.edu, william.kasch@jhuapl.edu, rdroms.ietf@gmail.com, jari.arkko@piuha.net, brian@innovationslab.net, odonoghue@isoc.org, brian@innovationslab.net From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20120217015344.14553B1E002@rfc-editor.org> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:53:44 -0800 (PST) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:1890:123a::1:2f X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: wwwrun@rfc-editor.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:03:46 +0000 Cc: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org, rwalters@qualcomm.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [ntpwg] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5905 (3126) X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5905, "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5905&eid=3126 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Richard Walters Section: 3 Original Text ------------- +-------------------+-------------------+------------------+ | Association Mode | Assoc. Mode Value | Packet Mode Value| +-------------------+-------------------+------------------+ | Symmetric Active | 1 | 1 or 2 | | Symmetric Passive | 2 | 1 | | Client | 3 | 4 | | Server | 4 | 3 | | Broadcast Server | 5 | 5 | | Broadcast Client | 6 | N/A | +-------------------+-------------------+------------------+ Figure 1: Association and Packet Modes In the client/server variant, a persistent client sends packet mode 4 packets to a server, which returns packet mode 3 packets. Corrected Text -------------- +-------------------+-------------------+------------------+ | Association Mode | Assoc. Mode Value | Packet Mode Value| +-------------------+-------------------+------------------+ | Symmetric Active | 1 | 1 or 2 | | Symmetric Passive | 2 | 1 | | Client | 3 | 4 | | Server | 4 | 3 | | Broadcast Server | 5 | N/A | | Broadcast Client | 6 | 5 | +-------------------+-------------------+------------------+ Figure 1: Association and Packet Modes In the client/server variant, a persistent client sends packet mode 3 packets to a server, which returns packet mode 4 packets. Notes ----- The majority of the rows in Figure 1 are correct if the 'Packet Mode Value' refers to the mode of packets which are expected to be received by an NTP speaker which has mobilized an association with the corresponding 'Association Mode'. Assuming this is the case, the last two rows are incorrect: * A peer with a mobilized 'Broadcast Server' mode association is not expected to receive any packets at all for this association -- a broadcast server does not receive anything back (see 'Broadcast' mode row in Section 9.2, Figure 20, where each column in that row is 'DSCRD'.) Therefore, the value of 'Packet Mode Value' for 'Broadcast Server' should be 'N/A', not '5'. * A peer with a mobilized 'Broadcast Client' mode association is expected to receive packets with a 'Packet Mode Value' of 5 for this association (see 'Bcast Client' mode row in Section 9.2, Figure 20, where each column in that row is 'DSCRD' except for the '5' column, which is 'PROC'.) Therefore, the value of 'Packet Mode Value' for 'Broadcast Client' should be '5', not 'N/A'. It might help the clarity of Figure 1 if the row labeled 'Packet Mode Value' were to be changed to 'Receive Packet Mode Value(s)'. The text immediately following Figure 1 also has the packet mode values swapped. As made clear throughout the RFC (for example, see Section 9.2 where is says, "FXMIT. This indicates a client (mode 3) packet matching no association (mode 0). If the destination address is not a broadcast address, the server constructs a server (mode 4) packet and returns it to the client without retaining state."), clients send servers packet mode 3 packets, not packet mode 4 packets; it is servers which send clients packet mode 4 packets, not packet mode 3 packets. Just to make it perfectly clear, here are the modes of packets sent: * Time t0: client mobilizes 'Client' mode association for server (via configuration, or due to reception of manycast server packet) * Time t1: client transmits mode 3 packet to server (e.g. via poll(p) => peer_xmit(p) when c.t >= p->nextdate) * Time t2: server receives mode 3 packet from client (dispatch: FXMIT; no association found or mobilized) * Time t3: server transmits mode 4 packet to client * Time t4: client receives mode 4 packet from server (matches previously mobilized association -- dispatch: PROC) Instructions: ------------- This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC5905 (draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-proto-13) -------------------------------------- Title : Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification Publication Date : June 2010 Author(s) : D. Mills, J. Martin, Ed., J. Burbank, W. Kasch Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Network Time Protocol Area : Internet Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Fri Feb 17 06:43:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E05221F872E for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 06:43:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hc7QSV2AblhL for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 06:43:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 383EF21F8710 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 06:43:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8305386DA2C for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:43:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03BA586D4F0 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:41:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from uillean.fuaim.com ([206.197.161.140]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1RyP07-0004ej-BH for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:41:38 +0000 Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach.fuaim.com [206.197.161.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B2BF8819A for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 06:41:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from clemson.local (nat-gwifi.jhuapl.edu [128.244.87.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D47E2130009 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 06:41:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F3E6714.6040901@innovationslab.net> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:41:24 -0500 From: Brian Haberman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org References: In-Reply-To: X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 206.197.161.140 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: brian@innovationslab.net X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: [ntpwg] Autokey analysis document X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org All, This is the English version of the report documenting the analysis of the Autokey specification is available at: http://www.innovationslab.net/~brian/NTP/autokey-analysis.pdf Please review it and comment as needed. It will be discussed during the tictoc WG meeting in Paris. Regards, Brian _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sat Feb 18 05:16:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20A1E21F8591 for ; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:16:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nN9CvvuvIba8 for ; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:16:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C75E221F8576 for ; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:16:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09EDE86DA27 for ; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:16:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7023E86D4F0 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:15:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rfc-editor.org ([2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1RyX1F-000Fml-WB for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:15:23 +0000 Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 456F372E042; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:10:14 -0800 (PST) To: mills@udel.edu, jrmii@isc.org, jack.burbank@jhuapl.edu, william.kasch@jhuapl.edu, rdroms.ietf@gmail.com, jari.arkko@piuha.net, brian@innovationslab.net, odonoghue@isoc.org, brian@innovationslab.net From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20120217231014.456F372E042@rfc-editor.org> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:10:14 -0800 (PST) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:1890:123a::1:2f X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: wwwrun@rfc-editor.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:12:49 +0000 Cc: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org, rwalters@qualcomm.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [ntpwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5905 (3127) X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5905, "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5905&eid=3127 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Richard Walters Section: A.5.5.1 Original Text ------------- /* * Scan the chime list from lowest to highest to find * the lower endpoint. */ found = 0; chime = 0; for (i = 0; i < n; i++) { chime -= s.m[i].type; if (chime >= n - found) { low = s.m[i].edge; break; } if (s.m[i].type == 0) found++; } /* * Scan the chime list from highest to lowest to find * the upper endpoint. */ chime = 0; for (i = n - 1; i >= 0; i--) { chime += s.m[i].type; if (chime >= n - found) { high = s.m[i].edge; break; } if (s.m[i].type == 0) found++; } Corrected Text -------------- /* * Scan the chime list from lowest to highest to find * the lower endpoint. */ found = 0; chime = 0; for (i = 0; i < n; i++) { chime -= s.m[i].type; if (chime >= n - allow) { low = s.m[i].edge; break; } if (s.m[i].type == 0) found++; } /* * Scan the chime list from highest to lowest to find * the upper endpoint. */ chime = 0; for (i = n - 1; i >= 0; i--) { chime += s.m[i].type; if (chime >= n - allow) { high = s.m[i].edge; break; } if (s.m[i].type == 0) found++; } Notes ----- In both scans (lowest to highest, and highest to lowest) chime >= n - found needs to be: chime >= n - allow Instructions: ------------- This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC5905 (draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-proto-13) -------------------------------------- Title : Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification Publication Date : June 2010 Author(s) : D. Mills, J. Martin, Ed., J. Burbank, W. Kasch Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Network Time Protocol Area : Internet Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Wed Feb 22 05:13:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED00821F87B7 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 05:13:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.38 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.38 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.220, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hiM5-ep+LGP3 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 05:13:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 720CF21F86D5 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 05:13:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C77C86DA2B for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:13:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5706C86D333 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 02:44:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rfc-editor.org ([2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1S02CN-00023t-5Z for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 02:44:56 +0000 Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 9D17672F563; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:39:38 -0800 (PST) To: mills@udel.edu, jrmii@isc.org, jack.burbank@jhuapl.edu, william.kasch@jhuapl.edu, rdroms.ietf@gmail.com, jari.arkko@piuha.net, brian@innovationslab.net, odonoghue@isoc.org, brian@innovationslab.net From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20120222023938.9D17672F563@rfc-editor.org> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:39:38 -0800 (PST) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:1890:123a::1:2f X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: wwwrun@rfc-editor.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:36:07 +0000 Cc: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org, rwalters@qualcomm.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [ntpwg] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5905 (3132) X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5905, "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5905&eid=3132 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Richard Walters Section: 11.2.1 Original Text ------------- First, those servers that are unusable according to the rules of the protocol are detected and discarded as shown by the accept() routine in Appendix A.5.5.3. Corrected Text -------------- First, those servers that are unusable according to the rules of the protocol are detected and discarded as shown by the fit() routine in Appendix A.5.2. Notes ----- The fit() and accept() routines are identical. Since accept() is not called from, nor mentioned anywhere else, whereas fit() is called from two places and listed in the function prototypes, just drop accept() and use fit() instead in section 11.2.1. Instructions: ------------- This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC5905 (draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-proto-13) -------------------------------------- Title : Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification Publication Date : June 2010 Author(s) : D. Mills, J. Martin, Ed., J. Burbank, W. Kasch Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Network Time Protocol Area : Internet Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Wed Feb 29 08:55:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF21D21F872D for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:55:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.676 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.923, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LVdny5r2dBvf for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:55:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A31721F873A for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:55:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5372686DA0B for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:55:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3438486D333 for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:54:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from uillean.fuaim.com ([206.197.161.140]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1S2mn3-0008OX-Mm for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:54:10 +0000 Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach.fuaim.com [206.197.161.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3824C88213 for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:54:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from clemson.local (nat-gwifi.jhuapl.edu [128.244.87.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0369B130015 for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:54:03 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F4E582A.5070903@innovationslab.net> Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:54:02 -0500 From: Brian Haberman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 206.197.161.140 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: brian@innovationslab.net X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: [ntpwg] Erratum filed against RFC 5905 X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org All, Does anyone have any comments on the 4 errata filings posted against the base NTP spec (RFC 5905)? Regards, Brian _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Wed Feb 29 11:07:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F4B21F87C8 for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:07:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rty9f284DL65 for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:07:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBA5621F85A1 for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:07:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D316686DA13 for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:07:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D42B86D333 for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:04:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 107-1-124-97-ip-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([107.1.124.97] helo=[10.2.64.28]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1S2opA-000BNy-R5 for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:04:29 +0000 Message-ID: <4F4E76B4.60501@ntp.org> Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:04:20 -0500 From: Danny Mayer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org References: <4F4E582A.5070903@innovationslab.net> In-Reply-To: <4F4E582A.5070903@innovationslab.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 107.1.124.97 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mayer@ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Erratum filed against RFC 5905 X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org On 2/29/2012 11:54 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: > All, > Does anyone have any comments on the 4 errata filings posted > against the base NTP spec (RFC 5905)? > > Regards, > Brian I remember seeing one, the one I submitted. What are the others? Danny _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Wed Feb 29 11:10:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E7F121F85D9 for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:10:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.742 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.742 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.857, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bpc30b4eHjKK for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:10:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 415C421F85D8 for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:10:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDEB086DA3B for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:10:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1B4286D333 for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:09:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from uillean.fuaim.com ([206.197.161.140]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1S2otz-000BQk-Pt for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:09:30 +0000 Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach.fuaim.com [206.197.161.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B20DE880CC for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:09:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from clemson.jhuapl.edu (unknown [128.244.243.28]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82F3F130015 for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:09:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F4E77E0.4050100@innovationslab.net> Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:09:20 -0500 From: Brian Haberman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org References: <4F4E582A.5070903@innovationslab.net> <4F4E76B4.60501@ntp.org> In-Reply-To: <4F4E76B4.60501@ntp.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 206.197.161.140 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: brian@innovationslab.net X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Erratum filed against RFC 5905 X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Danny, There were 4, all filed by Richard Walters. http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5905&eid=3125 http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5905&eid=3126 http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5905&eid=3127 http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5905&eid=3132 I am in the process of going through them right now. Regards, Brian On 2/29/12 2:04 PM, Danny Mayer wrote: > On 2/29/2012 11:54 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: >> All, >> Does anyone have any comments on the 4 errata filings posted >> against the base NTP spec (RFC 5905)? >> >> Regards, >> Brian > > I remember seeing one, the one I submitted. What are the others? > > Danny > > > _______________________________________________ > ntpwg mailing list > ntpwg@lists.ntp.org > http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg