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

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Wed, 19 February 2020 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 29E8B120121; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 06:44:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.996
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 iSKVKa7-81mp; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 06:44:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E59B7120120; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 06:44:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48N0ps6DmlzChM; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:44:05 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1582123445; bh=5Z0xLImSaldexpNMYWhIdEozW6cM2VhawiSCkKRdwE0=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=aHS9FELmMrpvYWw1SrwaKkMvRFjhAAax/bLwWPpmHXOoBqQr2QHrWFqMXWvi0eUN9 k6M7QYQi3UdGvG+1AFYsFLCRrxOkDx1BplqUm255z286c6NZSG8hySf8qcoSIUGJQ0 FHcW0LWdY1l3QelFGX/HxHKRm/ZlZkkbTQZ6DJe0=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D6OU4ONQ3dAP; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:44:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:44:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [193.111.228.74] (unknown [193.111.228.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 021E96020D46; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:44:01 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-407AAE42-2F53-41B2-A246-A71F083B333B
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16G102)
In-Reply-To: <20200219072347.GA2747553@ot.lublin.se>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:43:45 -0500
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <C5A4EA54-73BA-4401-9086-C759AE161792@nohats.ca>
References: <158169157632.16127.5189378582509283109.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20200219072347.GA2747553@ot.lublin.se>
To: Daniel Lublin <daniel@lublin.se>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/5wXbSShpVgxKCP9LElAxlr4bcC4>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 06:45:03 -0800
Subject: Re: [Ntp] [Last-Call] 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 14:44:12 -0000


> On Feb 19, 2020, at 02:23, Daniel Lublin <daniel@lublin.se> wrote:
> 
> Good day,
> 
> 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.

There shouldn’t be. See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7942

which clearly states:

Since this information is necessarily time dependent, it is inappropriate for inclusion in a published RFC. The authors should include a note to the RFC Editor requesting that the [implementation] section be removed before publication.

Paul