Re: [Ntp] comments on draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-23

[Sandra Murphy <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, and sorry it took me so long to go through your very hard work to address my comments and construct an organized reply.  Perhaps quick and dirty would have been better.

I did point near the beginning of the detailed comments to two GitHub issue numbers that I hoped would get some attention.

And I added a new comment about the “forward security” statement in the text.  I did check with Ben first to see if I was plain clueless, and he seemed to agree.  At least he offered to make the comment himself.  That was yesterday.

That’s about it.

I’m glad to see the discussion about retries, as it sort of goes to my concern about error conditions.

—Sandy

> On Mar 26, 2020, at 11:49 AM, Ragnar Sundblad <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Sandy,
> 
> Your input is still valuable, we do want to understand if there is
> anything broken, now and as long as this spec is in use.
> 
> Thanks for all your work!
> 
> We were going to prepare a reply to you, but maybe it is not needed.
> It seems you are ok with most solutions.
> 
> Regarding how the different errors should be handled, there was some
> extra text added in Section 4.1.3 in v27:
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-28#section-4.1.3>
> 
> We will go through your comments and address those that remain.
> 
> Ragnar
> 
>> On 26 Mar 2020, at 16:33, Sandra Murphy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Gad.  I was so absorbed in constructing a detailed reply that I missed the fact that publication had been decided.
>> 
>> —Sandy
>> 
>>> On Mar 26, 2020, at 8:03 AM, Sandra Murphy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> My responses took the form of general comments in the message text and a bunch of detailed comments in an attachment.  I’m going to respond to whether they were were addressed in v26 in two messages.  One will cover the detailed comments, this time inline the message text (an attachment was a mistake).  The other will cover the general comments.
>>> 
>>> —Sandy
>>