Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-07
Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Tue, 03 March 2020 19:51 UTC
Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 691633A0829; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 11:51:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=WMZT0ExE; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=fWIhKOuc
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y3DTGlT_VOAc; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 11:51:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8E3C3A0821; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 11:51:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9748617; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 14:51:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 03 Mar 2020 14:51:08 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= from:message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; s=fm2; bh=1ooCL1LioV9IVt27TI5Xa1z wnjO8Rfy2lhIaljndRRg=; b=WMZT0ExEO93BMJ0etTHdkyyDhYK+8spsQL1XSzl pe1Qmvb/5sFjMiq+WGRT5liq1ZaMz1joRvzbGaoKMfNodQovXqTHSRnAaVAn8u09 rC6V7XY5Ltk+K6HvpnLILnthZGVx/sZb8vlNK5IA7/fcKhF6gKMy6GPJxe5U1ND9 6M4Otz9rzcAD23i+dHKekEKPMqlZRnSpyU0FhCIkXWOwPHeL1jxVhuoxmFlEcXVo 2FvV3YBKKCDyb5T3QI5KxtqZ6Gjd9g+GwO/6TI1YizeHni1SaFVQnHIA1rH+vq3A LQqsvvjoRT1mdkKrHnEkPmsFQrBMYX1rMxcH8cdons3tDog==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=1ooCL1 LioV9IVt27TI5Xa1zwnjO8Rfy2lhIaljndRRg=; b=fWIhKOucKVftg8CPCsoRJ+ dNaQIukQXVHm0QgcJcE+wbc6/iCxYn8SO+xjgo16RmiegeCQ8G76nJfrj6+bsksi HX3UX7aKA8h+JyT/6xUf6C2Jtr3pRWSirpuwTl5S4PMX0pLrqCWeePJCT4dkbUSB Tr0vKaJWNHiz7WMeNz3oCaIKGx3G8ZIh1Hc9yLkmVdlps2eg4OBVfAR+pdCCEjge ycGVVMvA/xJXLDCT3gSBjyGLiMsqp/Z+vRV4RI42JPT7pEn4N0rob0VrdBU5Q66F rOYuAAJ/Y36rPPgvzTOURKnNz7czkfJdGlELVvnKD3HC8PyYn5gD7SwUDKCEMveg ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:K7VeXut3t2tWZnh3zd139xm9N6sl8ytkMcL1CLOYWhYdrY7-qq4VUQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedruddtiedgudefvdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhkfgtggfuffgjvfhfofesrgdtmherhhdtjeenucfhrhhomheptehlihhs shgrucevohhophgvrhcuoegrlhhishhsrgestghoohhpvghrfidrihhnqeenucffohhmrg hinhepihgvthhfrdhorhhgnecukfhppedujeefrdefkedruddujedrkedtnecuvehluhhs thgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheprghlihhsshgrsegtoh hophgvrhifrdhinh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:K7VeXiqBnPWcX9lX_5BVnCRdkHkNErG8TohUZdJqTugEv-Zv0JBE4g> <xmx:K7VeXv8X2S5QqIDKL6GywQK_wO2IMJL11QYl0CYq8fFUA0dnSaSVHA> <xmx:K7VeXqubx_j9G6SztiBDah0-I1IH8Nk58Uc2baTgu8KZlByEvShkvA> <xmx:K7VeXo_FyKhE3YmwTyloMO-C0WeCU-ULr8lPxRB8HwJZnQgc-gG3rQ>
Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro2.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.80]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 862DA328005A; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 14:51:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Message-Id: <319DB46F-48A7-4346-B937-B6D9C41B4580@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_154A406B-CA8D-446A-9576-493C22AB21E8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 14:51:04 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CABUE3XmtYXd3-ADaE3_P21MiAgrS-_b8Xey29J1XjBC_6+2x-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, ntp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps.all@ietf.org
To: Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
References: <158110455747.11678.12613654963980490395@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABUE3XmtYXd3-ADaE3_P21MiAgrS-_b8Xey29J1XjBC_6+2x-Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/7bB0nGoMJ6aAf_T5lnmGLarhWwY>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-07
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 19:51:14 -0000
Russ, thanks for your review. Tal, thanks for addressing Russ’ review. I entered a No Objection ballot. Best, Alissa > On Feb 16, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Russ, > > Many thanks for the thorough review. > > Please see the proposed changes below and let us know if they make > sense. If there are no further comments we will implement these > changes along with other changes following IETF last call. > > Cheers, > Tal. > > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 9:42 PM Russ Housley via Datatracker > <noreply@ietf.org <mailto:noreply@ietf.org>> wrote: >> >> Reviewer: Russ Housley >> Review result: Almost Ready >> >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area >> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed >> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just >> like any other last call comments. >> >> For more information, please see the FAQ at >> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-07 >> Reviewer: Russ Housley >> Review Date: 2020-02-07 >> IETF LC End Date: 2020-02-20 >> IESG Telechat date: Unknown >> >> >> Summary: Almost Ready >> >> Major Concerns: None >> >> >> Minor Concerns: >> >> Abstract: It is too long. In my opinion, the second paragraph should >> be moved to the Introduction. > > [TM] Agreed. > >> >> >> Section 2.1: Please use: >> >> The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", >> "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and >> "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in >> BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all >> capitals, as shown here. >> > > [TM] Agreed. > >> >> Section 2.3, paragraph 1: I think it would be better to define timestamp >> error without using the phrase "device under test". If you disagree, >> please add a definition for "device under test". >> > > [TM] We propose the following text update: > OLD: > Timestamp error: The difference between the timestamp value at the > device under test and the value of a reference clock at the same time > instant. > NEW: > Timestamp: A value that represents a point in time, corresponding to > an event that occurred or is scheduled to occur. > Timestamp error: The difference between the timestamp value and the > value of a reference clock at the time of the event that the timestamp > was intended to indicate. > > >> >> Section 3, Synchronization aspects: The paragraph should also say that >> there might not be any synchronization considerations. For example, an >> epoch since the device was powered up does not have any. >> > > > [TM] We propose the following text update: > OLD: > Synchronization aspects: > > The specification of a network protocol that makes use of a packet > timestamp is expected to include the synchronization aspects of using > the timestamp. While the synchronization aspects are not strictly part > of the timestamp format specification, these aspects provide the > necessary context for using the timestamp within the scope of the > protocol. Further details about synchronization aspects are discussed > in Section 5. > > NEW: > Synchronization aspects: > > The specification of a network protocol that makes use of a packet > timestamp is expected to include the synchronization aspects of using > the timestamp. While the synchronization aspects are not strictly part > of the timestamp format specification, these aspects provide the > necessary context for using the timestamp within the scope of the > protocol. In some cases timestamps are used without synchronization, > e.g., a timestamp that indicates the number of seconds since power up. > In such cases the Synchronization Aspects section will specify that > the timestamp does not correspond to a synchronized time reference, > and may discuss how this affects the usage of the timestamp. Further > details about synchronization aspects are discussed in Section 5. > > >> >> Section 9: Please say "such as Message Authentication Codes (MAC)". >> HMAC is one instance of a MAC, and you are not trying to name a specific >> algorithm here. >> > > [TM] Agreed. > >> >> Section 11.2: RFC 1323 has been obsoleted by RFC 7323. Is there a >> reason that it is better ot reference the older document here? >> > > [TM] Agreed. > >> >> Nits: >> >> General: Some places this Internet-Draft refers to itself as "this memo" >> and other places if refers to itself as "this document". Please pick. >> > > [TM] Agreed. > >> >> Section 1, paragraph 1: Nonces often have a timestamp embedded in them. >> For example, TLS 1.2 [RFC5246] defined the nonce as: >> >> struct { >> uint32 gmt_unix_time; >> opaque random_bytes[28]; >> } Random; >> >> So, I think the paragraph should include something about using time to >> create an unlikely to repeat value. >> > > [TM] We propose the following text update: > OLD: > Timestamps are widely used in network protocols for various purposes, > including delay measurement, clock synchronization, and logging or > reporting the time of an event. > NEW: > Timestamps are widely used in network protocols for various purposes: > timestamps are used for logging or reporting the time of an event, > delay measurement and clock synchronization protocols both make use of > timestamped messages, and in security protocols a timestamp is often > used as a value that is unlikely to repeat (nonce). > > >> >> Section 3: I do not find the "+" improves readability. > > [TM] Agreed. We will use a different bullet symbol. > > >> >> Section 3 says: >> >> The structure of the timestamp field consists of: >> >> + Size: The number of bits (or octets) used to represent the >> packet timestamp field. If the timestamp is comprised of more >> than one field, the size of each field is specified. >> >> Since there is only one item, I suggest: >> >> Size: The structure of the timestamp field consists of the number >> of bits (or octets) used to represent the packet timestamp field. >> If the timestamp is comprised of more than one field, the size of >> each field is specified. > > [TM] Agreed. > > >> Questions: >> >> Should RFC 6019 be included in the table in Section 6? > > [TM] Agreed. > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org <mailto:Gen-art@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>
- [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-n… Russ Housley via Datatracker
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Alissa Cooper