UDP Checksum Complement in the Network Time Protocol (NTP)
draft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer-07

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

(Brian Haberman) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2016-03-01 for -05)
No email
send info
Question:
 
     As described in Section 1, an intermediate entity that updates the
     timestamp in the NTP packet can use the Checksum Complement in
     order to maintain the correctness of the UDP checksum field.

I'm wondering about the "can use" here.
What is the alternative? Correct the UDP checksum field, which is incompatible with your use case (hardware timestamping)? 
Or use the zero checksum (not possible for IPv6)?

Isn't more like this? 
     As described in Section 1, an intermediate entity that updates the
     timestamp with hardware timestamping in the NTP packet MUST use 
     the Checksum Complement in order to maintain the correctness of the 
     UDP checksum field.

And, for the record, I agree with Barry's questions.

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

Comment (2016-03-02 for -05)
No email
send info
Thanks for synchronizing this with the IPPM checksum trailer draft!

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

Comment (2016-02-29 for -04)
No email
send info
-- Section 3.2 --

     The extension field includes 22 octets of padding. This field
     SHOULD be set to 0, and SHOULD be ignored by the recipient.

Why are these "SHOULD"?  Under what conditions might a sender not set them to zero?  Under what conditions might a recipient not ignore it, and what might it do if it doesn't ignore it?

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection