IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] Fwd: WGLC: draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp

kristof.teichel@ptb.de Thu, 06 December 2018 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <kristof.teichel@ptb.de>
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 9B323124C04 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 06:03:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 jJTeCiGn1fLh for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 06:03:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.bs.ptb.de (mx1.bs.ptb.de [192.53.103.120]) (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 97AD7126C01 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 06:03:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-hub.bs.ptb.de (smtpint01.bs.ptb.de [141.25.87.32]) by mx1.bs.ptb.de with ESMTP id wB6E3Dqa031163-wB6E3Dqc031163 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 6 Dec 2018 15:03:13 +0100
Received: from lotus.bs.ptb.de (lotus.bs.ptb.de [141.25.85.200]) by smtp-hub.bs.ptb.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FC9572D750; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 15:03:13 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <C73D7E8D-BD4A-47F3-B5B6-66F08EFE7842@isoc.org>
References: <FF5E07A6-6F59-4D45-A186-7FC7C9B4A41C@isoc.org> <C73D7E8D-BD4A-47F3-B5B6-66F08EFE7842@isoc.org>
To: Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org>
Cc: "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <OF567B7F7F.A727E097-ONC125835B.004D1F84-C125835B.004D3294@ptb.de>
From: kristof.teichel@ptb.de
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 15:03:17 +0100
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 004D3291C125835B_="
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/IHN5nbDe7l9tzAb1YqBGCieeE54>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Fwd: WGLC: draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp
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: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 14:03:23 -0000

Hey all,

Overall, I want to affirm that I am not currently aware of any 
dealbreakers in the issues brought up - I have my opinions, but I don't 
consider any of the currently running discussions to represent hills that 
I would die on.
As far as I am concerned, I would bow to consensus on any issue I'm (that 
I'm aware of - this is kind of a caveat, wasn't there talk about an issue 
tracker for this WGLC?).

I would only like to reiterate my general notion that at this point, 
changes (as in real semantic ones that alter the meaning of what is 
written) in the draft seem to be inherently more expensive than sticking 
with the status quo, and that I would prefer to only have any more of them 
if absolutely necessary.


Best regards,
Kristof


"ntp" <ntp-bounces@ietf.org> schrieb am 03.12.2018 17:23:59:

> Von: "Karen O'Donoghue" <odonoghue@isoc.org>
> An: "saag@ietf.org" <saag@ietf.org>
> Kopie: "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>
> Datum: 03.12.2018 17:24
> Betreff: [Ntp] Fwd:  WGLC: draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp
> Gesendet von: "ntp" <ntp-bounces@ietf.org>
> 
> Folks, 
> 
> We?ve extended this WGLC to this Friday, 7 December 2018. We?d still
> love some broader security review if possible. Note this protocol 
> uses TLS so folks might to ensure we haven?t caused any problems there. 
> 
> Karen
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org>
> Subject: [Ntp] WGLC: draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp
> Date: November 6, 2018 at 3:46:12 PM EST
> To: "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>
> 
> Folks,
> 
> This message initiates a three plus week working group last call for: 
> 
> Network Time Security for the Network Time Protocol
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp/
> 
> 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. We 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
> ntp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> ntp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email