Re: [Ntp] NTP Extensions (was Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-22.txt> (Network Time Security for the Network Time Protocol) to Proposed Standard)

[Karen O'Donoghue <[e-mail]>]

On 2/19/20, 11:51 PM, "Daniel Franke" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 5:28 PM Karen O'Donoghue <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > We can do two things:
    > 1) Quickly come to consensus with the implementers, authors, and working group on an update to the IANA considerations text that we can add between IETF Last Call and the IESG vote.
    > 2) Do nothing and let the IANA folks do what they will... (do you really want this to happen?!?)
    
    It seems to me we already have consensus. Everyone who's spoken up
    prefers that we ask IANA to register the numbers we've been squatting
    on. Some have added that if the numbers get changed, then they can
    live with that. I've already asked Hal Murray to submit a PR adding
    the requested numbers to the draft, but I'll take it from whomever
    submits one first.

<kfo> I have seen a lot of discussion and possibly consensus, but I haven't seen concrete text that articulates that consensus. The document is now a working group document, and given the amount of discussion around this topic, I would like to see the text agreed to before it is incorporated into the document. As you say it shouldn't be that hard, so someone please propose some text on the list, we'll discuss, determine consensus, and then you can incorporate it. 
    
    This makes the argument over whether EF type codes have any structure
    irrelevant because the codes we've been squatting already conform to
    the structure that Harlan asserts exists. But the argument is also out
    of order in general, because it's already been settled. Last year or
    so Harlan sought adoption of a draft laying out this structure. That
    draft is now a dead document because the response to the call for
    adoption was overwhelming and unanimous in opposition to it.
    
<kfo> You are correct that the Extension Field draft did not get adopted last year. However, there was a great deal more in that draft than just instructions or possible structuring for the assignment of the code points for EFs. This is still a topic that we could potentially resolve with a much more narrowly scoped document - if we chose to do so. Or we could move it to the potential future ntpv5 effort.