IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] The NTP WG has placed draft-roughtime-aanchal in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> Tue, 10 September 2019 06:33 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 84D41120887 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 23:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
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 fh6qkOw3ZzSx for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 23:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
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 51050120875 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 23:33:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shuksan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7082A40605C; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 23:33:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.3
To: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
cc: Harlan Stenn <stenn@nwtime.org>, NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>
From: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> of "Mon, 09 Sep 2019 21:44:46 PDT." <CACsn0cktCkUjS-gUSWPhVoo+LWJD_MVeSaX2WqdcH0WNPyo2Tg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 23:33:55 -0700
Message-Id: <20190910063355.7082A40605C@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/6qiFCHjPA4GzTQKIf-CeDH5roCg>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] The NTP WG has placed draft-roughtime-aanchal in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
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: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 06:33:58 -0000

watsonbladd@gmail.com said:
> I  would welcome specific suggestions for improvement or things you find
> unclear. 

I'm missing the big picture.  Why is this interesting?  Is this for some legal 
requirements?

Why invent a new packet format rather than use an extension on NTP packets?

Why is it interesting to have a convincing proof that server X returned the 
wrong time?  I see 3 cases:
  1) some new bug has been triggered, for example a GPS week number roll over. 
 (WNRO)
  2) the operator is sloppy or incompetent or ??? and has broken something
  3) the operator is a bad guy.

In case 1, the operator will fix the problem if we point it out.  A quick test 
is enough.  No proof needed.

In case 2, maybe they learn something, maybe they don't.  A proof won't help.

In case 3, the bad guy will give the truth to roughtime but lie on NTP.  So we 
don't have a proof when it might be helpful.  (That assumes we are using NTP 
to get accurate time.)



-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email