Re: [Ntp] Splitting the Roughtime draft?

[Marcus Dansarie <[e-mail]>]

On 2021-01-31 20:48, Watson Ladd wrote:
> This seems simple enough to add that it won't delay the process. I
> should be able to throw up some text this week... emphasis on should.

> Since then we've added Section 4 which directly addresses the concern
> of Tal that delay attacks were still possible, but it sounds like we
> would want to add detail to Section 11 and probably the introductio
> Downthread you mentioned revocation, and I think signing a
> specifically formatted recovation message would work fine. This would
> be a roughtime message, just one with a special tag alone that
> demonstrates the operator considers the key compromised.

Agree with the suggestions above. I should probably also be able to
spend some time on it this week. The cutoff date for IETF 110 is 22
February. It would be nice if we had something ready for WGLC by then.

Kind regards,
Marcus