[Ntp] Antwort: more comments on Roughtime (draft-11)

[[e-mail]]

Yeah, I second all of that.

I will say that the intended 'informational' status makes most of our points less pressing (and sorry for being a blockhead about it).

It does, however, make one point even more urgent: the draft/RFC needs to clarify what it is, and what it isn't!

I really want to make sure that no one reads one of those blog posts or papers from before 2020 that laud Roughtime as the Next Big Thing and expects to just run it - or just implement it from this draft in a couple weeks.

If there is no ecosystem yet, and no rules for one either, and the ecosystem is critical for the operation, then let's just clearly state that.

As an almost-aside, the intended informational status means I no longer follow any view of let's-not-be-overly-prescriptive-in-advance.

The document can just describe possible solutions with some "for example..." paragraph and be absolutely okay as an informational RFC, in my opinion.

But the good news is that with this misunderstanding out of the way, we now see a clear way forward, because the RFC doesn't actually need to prove anything, or even solve any specific goals (as long as it doesn't claim to). 

I have begun with adding suggested changes in the Github repo, since this realization really made me feel much easier about just making textual suggestions to fix what I still see as gaps.

Besten Gruß / Kind regards,
Kristof Teichel

__________________________________________

Dr.-Ing. Kurt Kristof Teichel
Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB)
Arbeitsgruppe 4.42 "Zeitübertragung"
Bundesallee 100
38116 Braunschweig (Germany)
Tel.: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
__________________________________________

-----martin.langer=[e-mail] schrieb: -----

An: [e-mail]
Von: martin.langer=[e-mail]
Datum: 05.09.2024 17:23
Kopie: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Betreff: [Ntp] more comments on Roughtime (draft-11)

Hey Watson, editors, WG members,

First of all, I'd like to point out that Kristof and I have only recently realized that

the Roughtime draft is intended to be 'informational'. This makes the discussions

much easier from our point of view, as many of our previous criticisms and

comments were based strictly on the assumption that the draft would become

a 'standards track'. We were therefore very eager to get the draft to a high

level of detail, fully describing all the necessary security features and proofs.

Since this is not the case, we feel that it is sufficient to mention ideas and 

concepts in various sections of the draft, but not to describe them in detail.

I have just re-read the current version (draft-11) and added many comments 

that help improve it. I think that if the abstract and the introduction are a bit 

more precise and the comments in the PDF are taken into account, then I will 

not oppose further steps (like the WGLC).

Best regards,
Martin

__________________________________________
Dr.-Ing. Martin Langer
Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB)
Working Group 4.42 "Dissemination of Time"
Bundesallee 100,
38116 Braunschweig (Germany)
Tel.: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
__________________________________________

_______________________________________________
ntp mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]

[Anhang 'draft-ietf-ntp-roughtime-11 - ml.pdf' entfernt von Kristof Teichel/PTB]