Re: BCP97bis

"Salz, Rich" <> Mon, 18 October 2021 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 504483A1461 for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 07:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.55
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.452, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lh8YTF7ZEXpc for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 07:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FED93A1465 for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 07:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id 19IEUvIi012446; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 15:51:30 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=WGlcdtTU6cgRxCchRuErgAAIUpkbYNMbVRbmARbopv0=; b=cLh/Gs4x6t7eAo8z3J8JSEac9XS2C2K4vDVBnHmV6OBoh+Ztgrry+XospcNJDIOmUwW/ I1oNc3bFoQHvwNTpmbHwyFvWSUyzeBhM7SgKlH+35BM19WUUJoghIsMT8GKrbxozUrSa 1g4NGfQTXXrHME6w1hcxNbAGqgYCEopKkBvmvorc6F9hmuz2+AyhJ0yY8KahZE9M2Nz8 gz6RB8KKAbNFRxcqi9dDW3D8AFlFCWy37AFSKYY5F2mdvKrrflGF5+24GbvZcJ/yyyIf Zoyjb0XEdgqAYWYBqvRl0EMCMametRCWBCe1qEpCNxRsQQPrbGBmUwmNP7ChqzpZgYPv TQ==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint5 ( [] (may be forged)) by with ESMTP id 3bsarn8a14-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 18 Oct 2021 15:51:29 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id 19IEnlK2022534; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 07:51:29 -0700
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP id 3bqvqbkuht-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 18 Oct 2021 07:51:29 -0700
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.23; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 10:51:28 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.023; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 10:51:28 -0400
From: "Salz, Rich" <>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
CC: ietf <>
Subject: Re: BCP97bis
Thread-Topic: BCP97bis
Thread-Index: AQHXwef7YbcJzymQ9E23b0PBRXQisqvYd0eAgAAmFACAADe6gIAARFyA//+9wgCAAEQYgP//wCaA
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 14:51:28 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.54.21101001
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_44C4286C408C428089563DA2931AFFF1akamaicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.425, 18.0.790 definitions=2021-10-18_06:2021-10-18, 2021-10-18 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=903 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2109230001 definitions=main-2110180092
X-Proofpoint-GUID: Owv_3F0ZP-rjf7TE2awUL85HrVipG9tM
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: Owv_3F0ZP-rjf7TE2awUL85HrVipG9tM
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:,Aquarius:18.0.790,Hydra:6.0.425,FMLib:17.0.607.475 definitions=2021-10-18_06,2021-10-18_01,2020-04-07_01
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxlogscore=853 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2109230001 definitions=main-2110180092
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 14:51:37 -0000

  *   Sure, you could make some assumptions that what's in the normative reference is correct, or sane, or trustworthy, or whatever.  What if you're wrong?  What if you want to be certain?

I suppose asking the authors isn’t practical for some reasons. I’m mildly curious what those reasons are, but that’s a secondary point.

  *   Shouldn't our processes err on the side of pushing for quality?

Sure, as long as reality isn’t constrained.  I looked up X.509, the ITU standard for certificates.  Text on the website says:
                This text was produced through a joint activity with ISO and IEC. According to the agreement with our partners, this document is only available through payment. Please get in touch with for more information.

Are normative references to X509 now not proper? Similarly, the next version of FIPS is a “diff” document around a couple of ISO documents; the cheapest price I found for them is USD $180.  Are normative references to FIPS 140-3 now not proper?

We have a working group that supports IEEE point-to-point time protocol.  That standard costs USD $280.  What should the NTP (and predecessor TICTOC) working group do?