IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] Quick review of WGLC for status change for draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries

Harlan Stenn <stenn@nwtime.org> Tue, 09 August 2022 02:00 UTC

Return-Path: <stenn@nwtime.org>
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 E09DCC14F747 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 19:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.115
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.115 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l7CwFYoX4XA2 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 19:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chessie.everett.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1:205::234]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2799DC14F730 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 19:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.208.75.149] (071-084-168-128.res.spectrum.com [71.84.168.128]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by chessie.everett.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4M1x905f7bzMP5L; Tue, 9 Aug 2022 02:00:04 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <84fb4a45-ab2b-4837-aa5c-c345fc77c5a3@nwtime.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2022 19:00:03 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.12.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org>, "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>
References: <PH0PR06MB7061FA7A5B338D262B3A2963C2999@PH0PR06MB7061.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <6a187a2f-9883-2fb5-1f51-1593591ddebb@nwtime.org> <PH0PR06MB706126984E4442EF32F8242AC2999@PH0PR06MB7061.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <da155c84-2c70-2e3b-59eb-03e380806cf2@nwtime.org> <PH0PR06MB70611F2331D8255F7E2B6604C2999@PH0PR06MB7061.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <0b4c7efa-3977-b588-0974-33b6a9437e52@nwtime.org> <1A04A523-1F97-4CF3-9A8C-B8A1868BD8DC@akamai.com>
From: Harlan Stenn <stenn@nwtime.org>
In-Reply-To: <1A04A523-1F97-4CF3-9A8C-B8A1868BD8DC@akamai.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/ifG_vD17lTAmnuG7kG_OyUpayn8>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Quick review of WGLC for status change for draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Time Protocol <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: Tue, 09 Aug 2022 02:00:17 -0000

On 8/8/2022 7:54 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>>     The NTP Project is opposed to the advancement/adoption of this document.
> 
> As you know, participation in the IETF is by individuals, not projects. We really don't want to go down that path, else it becomes "RedHat supports this document v NTP Project is opposed."

That is all well and good, and people are free to do what they will with 
the statement.

It is still true.

>>     - Table 1 is incomplete.  It does not include the value used by RFC
>      7821
> 
> Thank you for this. 7821 is experimental, but it should be listed. There are references in the text, I wonder how we missed it?  Thanks again.
> 
>> and it frequently refers to values that are "reserved for historic
>      reasons" without further explanation.  This leads me to:
> 
> In my experiences, this is all that registries say.

Perhaps that is the right choice for those registries.

But the problem goes away if there is a V1 and a V2 registry.  As I have 
said, ntpd that uses V2 has no demonstrated need to prevent V1 entries 
from being used.

> Because this document is updating the registries, your "leads me to" paragraphs about what the document does not describe do not seem relevant to me for this document.

And that's your prerogative.

I disagree with those who think it's OK to make folks do more work to 
find information they are looking for.

Also, not having a clear definition of the foundational aspects of 
things makes it very difficult for  3rd parties to audit/review 
allocation decisions, or for implementors to properly develop new proposals.

> Your items about not describing the conscious design and documenting them sound like something that would be a useful document.  I skimmed draft-stenn-ntp-extensions-field and it seems like section 4 could be the basis of such a document.

OK.

> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> ntp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
> 

-- 
Harlan Stenn <stenn@nwtime.org>
http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member!

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email