Re: [Ntp] WGLC: draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps

[Daniel Franke <[e-mail]>]

I have no objection to advancing this document. I wish the
introductory text would be clearer on who the document's intended
audience is, and the scope within which its recommendations are
intended to be applicable. If the reader misinterprets this document
as giving recommendations for the right way to represent time in an
entirely green-field project that doesn't have to interoperate with
anything else, then the recommendations are frankly terrible. The only
good reason for using a UTC timestamp that counts only non-leap
seconds and is ambiguous while leap seconds are in progress is that so
many existing systems are built this way (as I've said before, the
*sensible* way to express UTC in binary protocols is with two fields:
days since some epoch, and (nano|nibi)seconds since midnight).
Likewise, in a vacuum, the document's recommendations regarding
particularly choices of epoch or nibiseconds-vs-nanoseconds would be
unmotivated; they are the way they are purely because of existing
systems that already work that way. If the reader goes through the
document from start to finish, it eventually becomes clear that its
recommendations are centered around interoperation with existing NTP
or PTP systems. However, a reader who has only gotten through the
title, abstract, and introduction is likely to have incorrect
expectations about what follows.

On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 3:38 AM Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As WGLC has completed, we have uploaded an updated version of the draft:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-05
>
> We believe this version addresses all the comments we received, including the latest comments from Miroslav, Warner, and Denis.
> Specifically, the authors had some offline correspondence with Miroslav and Warner regarding the leap second description and the NTP timestamp epoch description. After a few iterations we believe we have reached a satisfactory version of the relevant text. The changes compared to draft 04 can be viewed in the diff version (https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-05.txt).
>
> Cheers,
> Tal, Joachim, and Al.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:37 PM Karen O'Donoghue <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> After receiving a few requests, I am going to extend this WGLC for one week. Please submit comments by COB on Friday 7 December. Even if you don’t have any comments, please indicate to the mailing list that you have read the draft and you believe it is ready for submission to the IESG. This is critical to helping the chairs determine working group consensus on this document.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Karen
>>
>> On Nov 6, 2018, at 2:52 AM, Karen O'Donoghue <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> This message initiates a three plus week working group last call for:
>>
>> Guidelines for Defining Packet Timestamps
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps
>>
>> Please review the referenced document and send any comments to the mailing list including your assessment of whether this document is mature enough to proceed to the IESG. Please note that these messages of support for progression to the mailing list will be used to determine WG consensus to proceed.
>>
>> Please send all comments in by COB on Friday 30 November. I realize this is a bit longer than normal but we are coming out of an IETF week and heading into the Thanksgiving holiday in the US.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Karen and Dieter
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ntp mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
>
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp