Re: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: Quick review of WGLC for status change for draft‑ietf‑ntp‑update‑registries

[Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]>]

On 8/8/2022 3:47 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>>>> Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]> schrieb am 08.08.2022 um 11:00 in
> Nachricht
> <[e-mail]>:
>> For whatever it's worth...
>>
>> I am opposed to the advancement/adoption of this document.
>>
>> The NTP Project is opposed to the advancement/adoption of this document.
>>
>> If this document is advanced, the NTP Project and I can only hope and
>> strongly recommend that IANA (or whomever) will take significant/primary
>> input from the NTP Project on the selection of the experts that will
>> oversee the maintenance of the various registries described in this
>> document.
>>
>> The problems I (and the NTP Project) have with this document include,
>> but are not limited to:
>>
>> ‑ it uses far too many words to say far too little.  In other places it
>> uses far too few words to say even less, except where it says nothing
>> about various significant aspects of the registries.
> 
> Harlan,
> 
> wouldn't you agree that this is also the category "it uses far too many words
> to say far too little"?
> What are you talking about specifically?

Answered in my response to Miroslav.

>> ‑ Table 1 is incomplete.  It does not include the value used by RFC
>> 7821, and it frequently refers to values that are "reserved for historic
>> reasons" without further explanation.  This leads me to:
>>
>> ‑ The document does not describe (ignores?) 22 years of conscious design
>> decisions around the two versions (revisions?) of extension field
>> syntax, which Dave Mills and I have previous spent 3+ years' time and
>> effort (10 document revisions) in documenting, in
>> draft‑stenn‑ntp‑extension‑fields.
> 
> There are different opinions on the design and documentation of the extension
> fields, I'm afraid.

So what?  Nobody asked for clarification, and several of us at the NTP 
Project are still in the very best position to describe it.

> I frequently had to use the source code as the documentation left too many
> details unanswered.

Like what?  And from what we have seen, as long as the design goals are 
met it's a good thing if implementors are given latitude to make their 
own choices.

> An many of the extension fields were (MHO) "stiched with a hot needle" (or
> "quick and dirty" if you prefer that phrase), blocking further extensions.

That's your opinion, and it is also news to me.  Can you cite examples?

What extension fields do you believe were stitched with a hot 
needle/quick and dirty?

What extension fields blocked further extensions?

You might also recall this timeline:

Sep 97 ntp-4.0.x first alpha release of ntp4
Nov 98 xntp3-5.95e final release of ntp3
        ntp-4.0.90 (first beta release of ntp4)
Jan 00 ntp-4.0.99 release of ntp4
Aug 01 ntp-4.1.0
Feb 02 ntp-4.1.1
Jul 03 ntp-4.1.2 major release
Oct 03 ntp-4.2.0 major release
Jul 05 FIRST DRAFT of what would become RFC 5905 (7 years after first 
published code)
Jun 06 ntp-4.2.2 major release
Dec 06 ntp-4.2.4 major release
Sep 07 FIRST DRAFT of what would become RFC 5906 (9 years after first 
published code)
Dec 09 ntp-4.2.6 major release
Jun 10 Publication of RFC 5905 and 5906
Dec 14 ntp-4.2.8 major release

The first proposals to add to extension fields came in somewhere around 
2015.

draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields has room for at least 256 EF field 
types.  To date I'm aware of a total of 10 defined or proposed field 
types.  That leaves over 245 available.  So what is "blocked"?

>> ‑ Without documented recognition of the underlying design decisions of
>> NTP Extension Fields and the guidance/expectations/safeguards that
>> design codifies, there seems to be little hope that future extension
>> field work will be done in a way that will safely evolve in a way that
>> is easily implementable or can be relied upon to be compatible.  This
> 
> I agree, but _where_ should such documentation be put? In the registry?
> If it's so complex that it needs a long story to explain, it clearly indicates
> that it is too complex IMHO.

What/where is this long story?

I don't believe you have substantiated your position.

>> lack of documentation about the expected layout of NTP Extension Fields
>> simply opens the door to chaos, or at least sub‑par decisions.
> 
> Should the layout of the fields be added to the registry?
> 
> Sorry Harlan, you message dod not help much to reduce the confusion that
> undoubtedly is there.

Thanks for your feedback.

H
--
> Regards,
> Ulrich
> 
> 
>>
>> H
>>
>> On 7/29/2022 1:41 PM, Karen O'Donoghue wrote:
>>> You are always free to send comments, but we cannot wait indefinitely
>>> for your contribution. At this stage, no one has raised any concerns
>>> with the document.
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> *From: *Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]>
>>> *Date: *Friday, July 29, 2022 at 4:08 PM
>>> *To: *Karen O'Donoghue <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [Ntp] Quick review of WGLC for status change for
>>> draft‑ietf‑ntp‑update‑registries
>>>
>>> I can still send them, if it will be good for anything.
>>>
>>> And the point remains that *nobody* else saw any of the problems with
>>> the document.
>>>
>>> H
>>>
>>> On 7/29/2022 12:19 PM, Karen O'Donoghue wrote:
>>>> Harlan,
>>>>
>>>> There were no negative comments received. You had indicated that you
>>>> were going to provide comments, but these comments were never received.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Karen
>>>>
>>>> *From: *ntp <ntp‑[e-mail]> on behalf of Harlan Stenn
>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>> *Date: *Friday, July 29, 2022 at 3:08 PM
>>>> *To: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>>>> *Subject: *Re: [Ntp] Quick review of WGLC for status change for
>>>> draft‑ietf‑ntp‑update‑registries
>>>>
>>>> Very sad and sorry to hear this.
>>>>
>>>> Were no comments received that point out the problems with the document?
>>>>
>>>> On 7/29/2022 11:30 AM, Karen O'Donoghue wrote:
>>>>> NTP working group,
>>>>>
>>>>> The Updating the NTP Registries draft has passed WGLC; however, during
>>>>> the shepherd writeup process, we identified that it should be Standards
>>>>> track instead of Informational. Rich has updated/uploaded a new version
>>>>> of the draft that addresses this and a few editorial issues raised by
>>>>> Dieter. Given the change in status, we would like to issue a very short
>>>>> review of the WGLC to see if there are any concerns regarding the change
> 
>>>>> in document type. Please respond if you have any questions or concerns
>>>>> by Friday 5 August.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft‑ietf‑ntp‑update‑registries/
>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft‑ietf‑ntp‑update‑registries/>
>>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft‑ietf‑ntp‑update‑registries/
>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft‑ietf‑ntp‑update‑registries/>>
>>>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft‑ietf‑ntp‑update‑registries/
>>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft‑ietf‑ntp‑update‑registries/
>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft‑ietf‑ntp‑update‑registries/>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks everyone!
>>>>>
>>>>> Karen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ntp mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp>
>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp>>
>>>>
>>>> ‑‑
>>>> Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]>
>>>> http://networktimefoundation.org
>>> <http://networktimefoundation.org><http://networktimefoundation.org
>>> <http://networktimefoundation.org>> ‑ be
>>>> a member!
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ntp mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp>
>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ‑‑
>>> Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]>
>>> http://networktimefoundation.org <http://networktimefoundation.org>‑ be
>>> a member!
>>>
>>
>> ‑‑
>> Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]>
>> http://networktimefoundation.org ‑ be a member!
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ntp mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]>
http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member!