IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-ntp-bcp-06

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Wed, 25 July 2018 23:31 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F0E6130934; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 16:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.423
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 bRjJQCl7wXVo; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 16:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-f170.google.com (mail-lj1-f170.google.com [209.85.208.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC67D130E02; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 16:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-f170.google.com with SMTP id f8-v6so8140623ljk.1; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 16:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3eBdmqZaD/YgDLPosTnlycJcF0P2u9PTQhT/M5CtyLI=; b=EITZByonO8jrjcLW68DQ7MSYUjwGqWgCY1mHQKH6eJpdxSOtfCS98YHbN4NoXbNR0k NpdTPkCXLJ1hjVPDzkYY+JbPLZ3l0E5M8TfftgVTNbgX6G6buP+bFMOnSXiIDAdkuiL5 fyaroWZuhGThJ6kXqHmkX66AMBsu3zdW93v+G9Sbgs8VvICAM19wqFLsNeEyngy3UKfx LskADApkjot5YVr9EE99edYFpxcEAKGHiUMWsXMIOjVu0VYY/mHx0c+ht+ciqtd2M12t DajUDaQDebQ3XgL0Z9NlIgxblHtNGc4os3yHpilIOEcuVaW05isB3RaiGa99DI7m9WIP +ghg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlE9TZc5BFGTeTTQkuEN4dfub9rKHg9UAKEJB8cS3wo/gslKFJsS 2ECba1ZMqkE1kD0H28hmCVul2GVhQcIQSzcE/pU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpfJgzmw2baVoAHJYyv6fsW8ZKiufdtXyuy/DY8oZ8QDOBTtX9g9SU7Sv7FF9wCZaiM7r6jZ3qSrnoF8xWw0q8g=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:5bc8:: with SMTP id m69-v6mr17810668lje.115.1532561491012; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 16:31:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJE_bqdt5jd81r8kVMCe=7LMA_2vP+q0UOyTjAed0-h61NVjgQ@mail.gmail.com> <OF88652C25.136ACF7D-ONC12582BA.0072712D-C12582BC.0047506E@ptb.de> <OFEE3BC3B5.6E555040-ONC12582BC.004B0443-C12582BC.004B0448@ptb.de>
In-Reply-To: <OFEE3BC3B5.6E555040-ONC12582BC.004B0443-C12582BC.004B0448@ptb.de>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 16:31:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqf8jZkahuEwYm4H7FWjKNWuuhQEgN2muZtoeNQyhOeVyg@mail.gmail.com>
To: dieter.sibold@ptb.de
Cc: ntp-chairs@ietf.org, int-ads@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-ntp-bcp@ietf.org, "<int-dir@ietf.org>" <int-dir@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/VPFHXUv1d3oIRxUxPYSaaeG1YXA>
Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-ntp-bcp-06
X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." <int-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-dir>, <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir>, <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 23:31:35 -0000

At Tue, 17 Jul 2018 19:40:24 +0200,
dieter.sibold@ptb.de wrote:

> in our reply from June 30 we described the measures we intended to take in order to address your concerns you expressed in your review from Jun 15  of draft-ietf-ntp-bcp-06. In the meantime we added your proposed changes to a new version of the draft. This version is not yet uploaded to the datatracker but accesssible under
> https://github.com/denisreilly/ntp-bcp/blob/master/draft-ietf-ntp-bcp-07.xml
> We would very much appreciate if you could review the changes. Please let us know if we addressed your concerns appropriately.

I've just re-reviewed the (pre) 07 version.  It generally looks pretty
good to me, addressing my comments.  Regarding separating
implementation ('ntpd') specific topics, I've noticed there are still
a few places in the main text that refer to 'ntpd'

- Section 4.4
   If a system is using broadcast mode and is running ntp-4.2.8p6 or
   later, use the 4th field of the ntp.keys file to specify the IPs of
   machines that are allowed to serve time to the group.

- Section 4.6.1
   Clients that are connected to leap smearing servers MUST NOT apply
   the "standard" NTP leap second handling.  So if they are using ntpd,
   these clients must never have a leap second file loaded, and the
   smearing servers must never advertise to clients that a leap second
   is pending.

- Section 5.1: 'the server statement' sounds like ntpd specific.
   An NTP client establishes a protected association by appending the
   key to the server statement in its configuration file.  Note that the
   NTP process has to trust the applied key.

- Various places in Section 6

You may want to move these to the appendix, but I don't argue these
are a DISCUSS-level issue, and I'd leave the decision to you.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email