RFC Errata

Errata Search

Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 5905, "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification", June 2010

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 7822, RFC 8573, RFC 9109

Source of RFC: ntp (int)

Errata ID: 3613
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Tony O'Brien
Date Reported: 2013-05-06
Rejected by: Brian Haberman
Date Rejected: 2013-05-06

Section 8 says:


In the paragraph explaining the sanity checks on received packets, it states: "In the exchange above, a packet is duplicate or replay if the transmit timestamp t3 in the packet matches the org state variable T3." But in the pseudo-code in A.5.1 it states
* If the transmit timestamp duplicates a previous one, the
* packet is a replay.
if (r->xmt == p->xmt)
i.e. comparing the transmit timestamp p->xmt with the xmt state variable T1. Which is correct?

Similarly for the check for a bogus packet, Section 8 states: "A packet is bogus if the origin timestamp t1 in the packet does not match the xmt state variable T1. But the pseudo-code says:
* If this is a broadcast mode packet, skip further checking.
* If the origin timestamp is zero, the sender has not yet heard
* from us. Otherwise, if the origin timestamp does not match
* the transmit timestamp, the packet is bogus.
synch = TRUE;
if (r->mode != M_BCST) {
if (r->org == 0)
synch = FALSE; /* unsynchronized */

else if (r->org != p->xmt)
synch = FALSE; /* bogus packet */
i.e. it is comparing the transmit timestamp t3 in the packet with the org state variable T3.

Which is correct? Looking at Figure 15 my guess would be Section 8 is correct but I have seen code that more closely follows the pseudo-code.
The Introduction of the document clearly states that the pseudo-code in the appendix is non-normative. Therefore the text in the main body of the specification describes the conformant behavior:

"The contents of Appendix A are non-normative examples designed to illustrate the protocol's operation and are not a requirement for a conforming implementation."

Report New Errata

Advanced Search