[Ntp] Antwort: Re: NTS4UPTP Rev 03 - Formal request for WG adoption

kristof.teichel@ptb.de Thu, 03 June 2021 07:39 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 F3D653A2E5A for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 00:39:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG=0.377, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 WjSGs0F16Mp1 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 00:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
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 8AE4B3A2E58 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 00:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-hub.bs.ptb.de (smtpint01.bs.ptb.de [141.25.87.32]) by mx1.bs.ptb.de with ESMTP id 1537d0xE019997-1537d0xG019997 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:39:00 +0200
Received: from lotus.bs.ptb.de (lotus.bs.ptb.de [141.25.85.200]) by smtp-hub.bs.ptb.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70CC3B77784; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:38:58 +0200 (CEST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sensitivity:
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
In-Reply-To: <B5F7602A-B084-4B21-9EB2-D25AB030E1EA@meinberg.de>
References: <B5F7602A-B084-4B21-9EB2-D25AB030E1EA@meinberg.de>, <7F9B8D13-BC90-4E15-9BDF-81714DF0F0C6@meinberg.de> <YLYCLIEA4/unB6/5@localhost> <1DAA3605-CC04-46DE-8CFC-975BED7D4160@meinberg.de> <YLYheZYTSflAdlrF@localhost> <CEB3F4AA-E318-4540-BD6C-4437E3F5F58A@meinberg.de> <YLY3f2/5k1Hjebf7@localhost> <7167BC2B-1889-4DF5-AF7C-BAAAB3586841@meinberg.de> <YLZVS4jwGOnMIk6g@localhost> <24DF9BF2-3072-4152-80D6-9F10D53A59AF@meinberg.de> <YLeFyqZp6bZY9nY9@localhost>
From: kristof.teichel@ptb.de
To: "Heiko Gerstung" <heiko.gerstung=40meinberg.de@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:38:56 +0200
Message-ID: <OF32A3C2C9.BA5F362B-ONC12586E9.002820A8-C12586E9.002A048D@ptb.de>
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/ZLr8EWKIFYyMmkd7Wquy2d9D3gg>
Subject: [Ntp] Antwort: Re: NTS4UPTP Rev 03 - Formal request for WG adoption
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, 03 Jun 2021 07:39:06 -0000

>>At this point I would be open to change the name of the draft so that it does not contain "NTS" anymore, if that helps. It seems that quite a number of the authors do not like that we based our proposal on their work and would rather like unicast PTP to use something else as a key exchange protocol. [...]

As one of the editors, I do feel misrepresented here.
There are five of us, only three of whom have spoken about NTS4UPTP at all, with only one who spoke out in rejection.
I will get back to you (after studying the draft in more detail) on what I think about how you based your proposal on our work, but I am perfectly happy that you did.

@Daniel: would it change your stance if this draft were not named anything with "NTS" at all?

>> It is pretty hard to try and compare our proposal against a bunch of ideas that are thrown into the discussion. Most of the proposed alternatives seem simple and easy to describe with two or three sentences, but when we drafted our proposal, we found out (once again) that when you try to describe something in written form, a lot of details and corner cases come up that you have to deal with. In the end, you often end up with at least 10-20 pages, no matter how simple the idea sounds in the beginning.

Yes, absolutely agree. 
And in those pages, you are pretty likely to stumble over the detail that will make your draft more controversial than you thought.
This is why I want to clarify that (unless I ever explicitly say so) none of my technical discussion, wishful thinking or even design sketching is to be taken against the NTS4UPTP draft (or other drafts).