IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [ntpwg] slight modification to charter based on comments received

"Odonoghue, Karen F CIV B35-Branch" <karen.odonoghue@navy.mil> Tue, 15 February 2005 03:09 UTC

Return-Path: <karen.odonoghue@navy.mil>
X-Original-To: ntpwg@ntp.isc.org
Delivered-To: ntpwg@ntp.isc.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ntp1.ntp.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8649C115F3; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 03:09:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from karen.odonoghue@navy.mil)
Received: from ntp1.ntp.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ntp1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 39465-09; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 03:09:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from gate11-norfolk.nmci.navy.mil (gate11-norfolk.nmci.navy.mil [138.162.5.8]) by ntp1.ntp.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 03:09:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from karen.odonoghue@navy.mil)
Received: from naeanrfkms04.nmci.navy.mil by gate11-norfolk.nmci.navy.mil via smtpd (for ntp1.ntp.isc.org [204.152.184.126]) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 03:09:28 +0000
Received: (private information removed)
Received: from no.name.available by naeanrfkfw14c.nmci.navy.mil via smtpd (for insidesmtp2.nmci.navy.mil [10.16.0.170]) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 03:09:25 +0000
Received: (private information removed)
Received: (private information removed)
Received: (private information removed)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6556.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [ntpwg] slight modification to charter based on comments received
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:09:17 -0600
Message-ID: <1929B8C5B318524495727D8A241DAFB201C84B82@NAEAMILLEX03VA.nadsusea.nads.navy.mil>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [ntpwg] slight modification to charter based on comments received
Thread-Index: AcUTCNYUPaDEX9NQReOSPw0OB3HFaQAATLSA
From: "Odonoghue, Karen F CIV B35-Branch" <karen.odonoghue@navy.mil>
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Feb 2005 03:09:18.0763 (UTC) FILETIME=[BD12EFB0:01C5130B]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on ntp1.isc.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=-999.0 required=5.0 tests=
X-Spam-Level:
Cc: ntpwg@ntp.isc.org, mills@udel.edu
X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.isc.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol <ntpwg.lists.ntp.isc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg>, <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.isc.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/private/ntpwg>
List-Post: <mailto:ntpwg@lists.ntp.isc.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.isc.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg>, <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.isc.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 03:09:33 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 21:48
> To: Odonoghue, Karen F CIV B35-Branch
> Cc: Harlan Stenn; ntpwg@ntp.isc.org; mills@udel.edu
> Subject: Re: [ntpwg] slight modification to charter based on comments
> received 
> 
> 
> > I believe the plan for SNTP based on my examination of the
> > id-tracker is...
> 
> > Work with Dave Mills do some cleanup and publish an Informational
> > RFC update to SNTP as soon as possible.
> 
> Actually, it was my understanding that (per the last BOF), the RFC
> editor would publish draft-mills-sntp-v4-00.txt pretty much straight
> away (as an informational document), and the WG would not be involved
> in work on that document per se.
> 
> Or did I get this wrong?

That was my original understanding (and my preference), but upon 
examination of the id-tracker, I came to a different conclusion.
I prefer the first and am happy to go with it.

> > Pursue a more robust standards track SNTP specification as
> > part of the NTPv4 protocol specification.
> 
> I think this would then be your first work item.

Right, and the thought is that the SNTP informational RFC would be
incorporated into the NTP protocol specification - one of the first
two documents we will be focusing on. 

> > I have pulled the comments from the IESG out of the id-tracker and
> > attached them below.
> 
> These comments were the result of the IESG review of draft-mills. The
> IESG intends to notify the RFC Editor that the document can be
> published and that publication of the document does not conflict with
> this WG. It is then between the RFC Editor (and the author) how the
> IESG comments are to be resolved (per RFC 3932).

Good. 
 
> It is also my understanding that the RFC Editor has been working with
> Dave Mills and that version 01 is in the works (or has already been
> done) that addresses most of the issues that were raised in the IESG
> review.
> 
> Thomas

Thanks for clarifying this.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email