Re: [Ntp] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-ntp-interleaved-modes-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Erik Kline <> Wed, 21 July 2021 20:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE7FD3A2793; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 13:09:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.086
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.086 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nNjMIBM7ioXm; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 13:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5ED63A2791; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 13:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c197so4127426oib.11; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 13:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4z2UWgVC4FGNVOtmxv4IUYl+CkgvuE99dkK10O6HWP4=; b=ugW+IFerUbVFEcuYXa1YxtZzQ1VPaegRXBWLsypUbwSdXMatuYZhGNHGpmwLIDtt0m zL1/uCq5AN2F8PS78o85W/d61uA6SZxiJau4v2kO58invJ3uZduvzmzmR8lfYkJmcUJF sxoawznlGA0ru+hUTUj5KVyUbOBDWJMWUahupBF++66rEvWPo9TUh6GHePZfIYyV/Z5m vYtohI2vDNe2g7P1wijyxaoZlWbVsMT34dkB/nizYXyzLj+1m5+0Cy4KI4MJDS4op9o7 QG+ibP/tA+6IqrebU124ONE+4TYDeKwYlbYbkNjwOr2hgzIiQc34nKWOgwAOLpy8Yh92 JNdw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4z2UWgVC4FGNVOtmxv4IUYl+CkgvuE99dkK10O6HWP4=; b=NL7MzxFssuVoa6bqlveccropJHCr6reDKwNIN1P2dpf2R+6n8xj1HsUnEZdurXTWnu Nif0aVxbaDue/6rZuuHqaa8Hz3bWSuNwUnMSbcu2tjqgcAUUWDC1e7I81elB9IZwzjwL 1r7hOsnoofqp6I9rIMMVh5BAJngJ3kRpnOG3ECiBdKdkkQ/kK8TAn5ZTzU89p/Ot7n3M uw+BLZP93IY5BC7w+SKBktlnomMT0KJAydWiHzDyuYygyfMCdhP+WJcAIGA+lINoabEb 0v3e1OwPxV4KI+Pjr/hvqP9RgOWfZmsbX6ZpdrLFJWp2WvXBC6Ii/IUelQYunBl79rd4 NOXg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531DZn8QiTyArlG5xvGHwLqVfY+GT8mlssFVcXd5fg61MC+qGwBz d5mYZf/iRN27KJNFnOIIMH7Y9RTC+hEXt1P849g=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyJYuImQ9jk60MpyqCtyHZk+nXDkoZdSAr6zXzbEPFlNvlmtFBeqdUhtTun6JKTJQIsRCsRmxyBD/NaOdtH+tQ=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:2b07:: with SMTP id i7mr3855605oik.97.1626898146896; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 13:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <YNw9fHMijDFIW9B4@localhost> <YNrbjCDF4/609dg/@localhost> <> <YN3ZzPN5LOsAjmz6@localhost> <> <YPfmUK889qx7r5x2@localhost> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Erik Kline <>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 13:08:56 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: "Salz, Rich" <>
Cc: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <>, Miroslav Lichvar <>, "" <>, "" <>, The IESG <>, "" <>, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <>, "" <>, Warren Kumari <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000021ad8205c7a7be25"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 08:27:37 -0700
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-ntp-interleaved-modes-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Time Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 20:09:14 -0000

I remain hopeful that a reasoned back-and-forth discussion on technical and
operational points with folks across a variety of technical backgrounds is
possible here.  We ought to be able to iterate toward a net good outcome --
even if it takes a bit of time, perhaps there's a way to better communicate
the concept (among other possible paths forward).

One thing that comes to mind is that the document might benefit from a
clear "why we think this is safe" section (perhaps as the 2nd half of a
mode-agnostic Protocol Overview/Summary section).  Each individual mode
description section has some "if this is not supported by X then Y happens
and that's fine" type of text, but perhaps gathering or repeating that in
one clear place might help?  I'm not sure if that would address some of the
currently stated concerns, but it's an idea that I failed to have and
communicate during my AD Eval -- and for that I apologize.

If the agenda for the ntp meeting next week isn't already fixed, perhaps we
can discuss approaches during a slot there.

-ek  (who wrote the original IPv6 support for Google's NTP service and was
responsible for Android's SNTP code during tenure on that team)

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 6:43 AM Salz, Rich <rsalz=> wrote:

> I was not referring just to you, but rather to the variety of comments
> from IESG members that said this is a hack, it won't work, etc:  Warren,
> Lars endorsing Warren, Theresa for gen-art, Ben Kaduk.
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list