Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-time-tag-01.txt

[Ira McDonald <[e-mail]>]

Hi Carsten,

NTPv5 use cases and requirements has only just been WG adopted.

NTPv5 protocol has two different proposals.  The authors were tasked at
IETF 113
(previous IETF) to get together a unified proposal.  Hasn't happened yet.
Although
there are a lot of needs for NTPv5 (which will integrate NTS security)
across various
industries and use cases , I would be surprised if NTPv5 protocol was in a
mature
I-D before the end of 2023.

So the NTPv5 "local time" idea will probably be adopted, but the details
are unclear.

Cheers,
- Ira

*Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)*

*Chair - SAE Trust Anchors and Authentication TF*
*Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG*

*Co-Chair - TCG Metadata Access Protocol SG*








*Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WGSecretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer
Working GroupCo-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WGIETF
Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIBBlue Roof Music / High North
Inchttp://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
<http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>mailto: [e-mail]
<[e-mail]>(permanent) PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434*


On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 12:57 AM Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Ira,
>
> > Miroslav Lichvar proposed NTPv5 "Local Time" this morning - here's the
> email thread
> > on the NTP WG mailing list:
> >
> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/H4iJw5OcRNa44Cigk6FRfRTXgrs/
>
> This is interesting.  Aligning with NTPv5 obviously makes a lot of sense.
>
> Do you have any estimation for the timelines within NTPv5 will happen?
> We may want to publish time-tag alongside SEDATE, which I would assume
> happens this year.
> We could put in a concept of local-time that is intended to be compatible
> with eventual NTPv5, or we could hold off and add that later when NTPv5
> appears stable.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
>
>