Re: [Ntp] WGLC: draft-ietf-ntp-data-minimization

Hi Samuel,

Thank you for your comments. Response inline.

On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 11:18 PM Samuel Weiler <weiler@watson.org> wrote:

> I'm delighted to see the WG progressing this doc - data minimization
> is important.  I have some small comments on -03:
>
>
> Section 3, re: Transmit Timestamp field:
>
> "uniformly at random" is a phrase that doesn't quite make sense to me.
> Could the doc clatify what is meant by "uniformly" in this case?  Or
> maybe remove that word?
>

I see the confusion. It would be better to say "uniformly and
pseudorandomly" or
may be just get rid of the word "uniformly" (as you suggest.)

>
>
> Section 4.2, last paragraph:
>
> I'm not used to seeing specific implementations called out in an RFC.
> Perhaps remove this paragraph?  If it must stay in, anonymize it with
> "Some implementations have..."
>

 I am not sure if it violates any rules or RFC requirements. Do others on
the list have opinions about this?

>
>
> Poll field:
>
> Like Marcus Dansarie, I noticed the mismatch in language (if not
> intent) between section 3:
>
>     "The Poll field SHOULD be set to either the actual polling
>     interval ... or zero."
>
> And section 4:
>
>     "Zeroing the poll field is made optional (MAY rather than
>     SHOULD)..."
>
> I would like to see a clear and consistent recommendation.  After
> talking with Harlan, I suggest "SHOULD be set to the actual value ...
> and MAY be set to zero."  I'll leave it to him to explain that choice.
>

Thanks for pointing out. Will fix this.

>
>
> Generally:
>
> Marcus Dansarie's 3 September comments appear to not have been
> addressed.
>

Will address these in the next revision.

>
> -- Sam
>
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> ntp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
>