Re: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: Quick review of WGLC for status change for draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries [Meta: tone and conduct]

[[e-mail]]

Hi all,

sending that last mail to the public dispenser instead of just to Miroslav 
was a mistake, I apologize for the potential further distraction.


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]
__________________________________________



Von:    Kristof Teichel/PTB
An:     "NTP WG" <[e-mail]>
Datum:  18.08.2022 11:30
Betreff:        Re: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: Quick review of WGLC for status 
change for draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries [Meta: tone and conduct]


Hey Miroslav,

regardless of me criticizing that last comment of yours (which I do find 
to be a slip-up)...

You have my respect (for what it's worth) for staying that composed for 
that long.
And I'm sorry no one spoke up previously, Harlan's tone and conduct 
towards you (and Rich) in particular would have certainly warranted it a 
few times in the previous week or so.
Thanks for how much work you do and input you give, too!


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]
__________________________________________




Von:    Kristof Teichel/PTB
An:     "NTP WG" <[e-mail]>
Kopie:  "Harlan Stenn" <[e-mail]>, "Miroslav Lichvar" 
<[e-mail]>
Datum:  18.08.2022 11:23
Betreff:        Re: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: Quick review of WGLC for status 
change for draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries [Meta: tone and conduct]


On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 02:44:42PM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> Sometimes I have trouble taking you seriously.

Imagine how others feel about you, and I don't mean just you
personally, but the whole project you represent.


I'd like to ask we all keep ad hominems (at the *very* least direct ones) 
out of our WG communication.
In particular, I can't see how the WG benefits from any mention of who 
takes whom seriously, or who considers themselves finished with whom.

Harlan, I think it's great that you've been asserting boundaries for 
yourself, particularly regarding how you'd like to be treated respectfully 
as a person and don't like having words put in your mouth.
Please provide the same treatment to others, regardless of whether or not 
(or when) they explicitly assert those boundaries themselves.


Some of the topics discussed recently seem to be sensitive issues.
It does seem like we need to talk through them, and the more respectful 
and constructive our overall tone and conduct remains, the less 
distracting it will be and the more effective we can have those 
discussions (on top of being more desirable anyway, at least to me 
personally).


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]
__________________________________________




Von:    "Miroslav Lichvar" <[e-mail]>
An:     "Harlan Stenn" <[e-mail]>
Kopie:  "Ulrich Windl" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" 
<[e-mail]>, "Heiko Gerstung" <[e-mail]>
Datum:  18.08.2022 10:12
Betreff:        Re: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: Quick review of WGLC for status 
change for draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries
Gesendet von:   "ntp" <[e-mail]>



On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 02:44:42PM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> Sometimes I have trouble taking you seriously.

Imagine how others feel about you, and I don't mean just you
personally, but the whole project you represent.

You write a specification that says messages in newer versions are
ignored, but your implementation intentionally doesn't follow that,
refering to some design rules that are not written anywhere.

You say it's important to use the algorithms from the specification to
have a specific impulse response, yet your implementation doesn't do
that and has a much worse impulse response.

You specify an Autokey protocol, but your implementation intentionally
uses a different format of the field type and you don't tell anyone.

Your relationship with IETF seems unhealthy. It's almost like you
don't really want anyone to interoperate with you, or use a more
advanced implementation. 

> In v1 the 3rd word is Estimated Drift Rate.
> 
> In v2 and beyond the 3rd word is Synch Dispersion.

> None of these values are used in the basic time calculations.

So you are ok with the client getting different data in different
units than it expects, assuming it doesn't do anything important with
this it anyway.

> And this change was made/codified over 33 years' ago.

It's still a good example showing that NTP didn't follow the design
principles you are now trying to enforce.

> Do you agree that a v4 packet without EFs is equivalent to a v3 packet?

Yes. If the client doesn't use any EFs, it could send it as v3 for
better compatibility with old servers.

> If so, that's 100% compatibility.

If you ignore packets with EFs, i.e. the only new feature of v4 as you
say.

> > A v3 server is not able to respond to a v4 request containing
> > extension fields, even if it's authenticated with a symmetric key that
> > the server knows.
> 
> So what?

It means that v4 is not compatible with v3, i.e. v3 servers should
drop v4 requests.

> > If you read the draft, you would know there is no additional delay.
> 
> So what delay is there?  I'm trying to avoid spending time slogging thru 
a
> significant document to obtain a small piece of information.

The client starts with a v4 request to detect the v5 support on the
server. It can use the v4 response for synchronization. There is no
delay in setting the clock.

When v5 is widely supported, the default can be changed to start with
v5 and maybe fall back to v4 if the server is not responding.

> And the v5 work that I have see is all about "rough consensus" and, to 
date,
> nothing about "working code".

If I showed you a working NTPv5 server and client, would that change
your mind?

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar

_______________________________________________
ntp mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp