Re: [Ntp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-22.txt> (Network Time Security for the Network Time Protocol) to Proposed Standard

Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> Wed, 19 February 2020 08:48 UTC

Return-Path: <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
X-Original-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6029A1200B5; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:48:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.035
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.035 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 yhSkXGp1Os88; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:48:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net [64.139.1.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F3FC12001A; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:48:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shuksan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4C6840605C; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:48:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.3
To: Daniel Lublin <daniel@lublin.se>
cc: last-call@ietf.org, ntp@ietf.org, "Karen O'Donoghue" <odonoghue@isoc.org>, draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp@ietf.org, ntp-chairs@ietf.org, suresh@kaloom.com, IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>, hmurray@megapathdsl.net
From: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from Daniel Lublin <daniel@lublin.se> of "Wed, 19 Feb 2020 08:23:47 +0100." <20200219072347.GA2747553@ot.lublin.se>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:48:13 -0800
Message-Id: <20200219084813.E4C6840605C@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/5OAdU8rNevdWIyLDYNCZa6GRb78>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-22.txt> (Network Time Security for the Network Time Protocol) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ntp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ntp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ntp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 08:48:20 -0000

daniel@lublin.se said:
> I'm not entirely convinced of keeping a list of implementations in an RFC.
> But since the information is there, let's at least have it corrected and
> updated upon publishing. 

I thought it was a temporary section and would be deleted by the final editing 
pass when the TBDs were filled in.

Traditionally, RFCs required running code, normally at least 2 independent 
implementations that can talk to each other.  That section is useful while 
debugging and collects the data for the reviewers.

-------

Speaking of TBDs...  How do we contact the czar who assigns numbers for NTP 
extensions?  We've all been testing with 4 values.  It will be a pain if they 
change and I don't know of any reason not to make the values we are using 
official.


-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.