Re: [Ntp] [EXT] Need guidance on interpreting NISTIR 8366
Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> Wed, 12 May 2021 22:49 UTC
Return-Path: <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
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 6AA753A1786 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 May 2021 15:49:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EoLMuw2lZRHZ for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 May 2021 15:49:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.uni-regensburg.de (mx1.uni-regensburg.de [IPv6:2001:638:a05:137:165:0:3:bdf7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC9A83A1780 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 May 2021 15:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id BA2906000050 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 May 2021 00:49:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtp2.uni-regensburg.de (smtp2.uni-regensburg.de [194.94.157.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.uni-regensburg.de", Issuer "DFN-Verein Global Issuing CA" (not verified)) by mx1.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 846BA600004D for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 May 2021 00:49:01 +0200 (CEST)
To: ntp@ietf.org
References: <CAJm83bB_4YK42O_na24MH1k+zzV1EEJ9_Y=CErkGuP+OqqgSzQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
Message-ID: <eda282f0-5dbe-f355-5b91-92caa8896ba0@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 00:49:01 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJm83bB_4YK42O_na24MH1k+zzV1EEJ9_Y=CErkGuP+OqqgSzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/zZwxGFP71xVNuNIMtMZfqYR4oi4>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] [EXT] Need guidance on interpreting NISTIR 8366
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <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: Wed, 12 May 2021 22:49:13 -0000
On 5/12/21 7:58 PM, Daniel Franke wrote: > (CCed recipients, see > <https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/on-inclusive-language/ <https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/on-inclusive-language/>> > for context) > > I'm writing for guidance on interpreting NISTIR 8366 as it pertains to > my work and that of the NTP working group, and in particular on > several matters surrounding the following language from section 4.1: > > "Avoid terms that perpetuate negative stereotypes or unequal > power relationships > > Examples: master/slave; smart/dumb; right/left" I'm afraid any "dumbphone" wouldn't make it to the market (just as D.U.M.B. monitoring for harddrives;-) > > with the footnote, > > "In this example, avoid using right to mean 'good' or 'normal,' > and left to mean 'bad' or 'abnormal.'" > > The NTP working group is presently discussing extending RFC 8915 > ("Network Time Security for the Network Time Protocol") to support > PTP (the Precision Time Protocol, IEEE 1588). IEEE 1588 makes > pervasive use of master/slave terminology to describe fundamental > concepts of the protocol. (As a historical aside, the terms and > concepts of "master clock" and "slave clock" are much older than PTP; > see <http://www.hvtesla.com/masters/masters_index.html > <http://www.hvtesla.com/masters/masters_index.html>> for some > examples from as early as 1838). What should we consider to be best > practice for dealing with this sort of situation, where we're building > on work that originates from a non-IETF standards body and uses > terminology that is plainly non-compliant with NISTIR 8366? I wonder: Will the movie "Masters of the Universe" be renamed? Is "Superman" still allowed? Blackholes? White dwarfs? > > Any work that builds on IEEE 1588 can't reasonably avoid using the > technical concepts that IEEE 1588 uses "master/slave" to represent. > It could continue using the same terminology, either with or without > an acknowledgement that it is violating NISTIR 8366 in doing so. Or, > it could define its own synonyms, but would still need to use the > original terms at least one when defining the new ones in order to > make the synonymy clear to the reader. What's the correct approach? I think the real question is: How many non-master people were ever hurt by a master PTP clock? How many people are afraid of a PTP master clock? > > Taking this a little further: "unequal power relationships" is an > awfully broad concept and I don't think any time synchronization > protocol can ever get away from it no matter what euphemisms it > chooses. I happen to have written Byztime > <https://github.com/akamai-contrib/byztimed > <https://github.com/akamai-contrib/byztimed>> which is a truly > peer-to-peer protocol, but NTP and PTP are inherently I also wonder: Have there been any claims against the phrase "black power"? > hierarchical. They have to be, because they exist to support a > hierarchical social function. The answer to "what time is it?", in the > context of TAI or any timescale based on it (such as UTC) ultimately > derives from a central authority, BIPM, and the network of reference > clocks coordinated under it. And even with Byztime, there's still > power inequality between the set of configured peers, which are > authorized to participate in consensus, and the rest of the world > which is unauthorized. > > I think we can find some principled middle ground here. I take for > granted that everyone reading this agrees that slavery is evil, but > only a tiny minority, mostly the intellectual heirs of Proudhon, favor > the complete abolition of *all* power hierarchies. I would be very > surprised if NIST, a bureau of the United States government, intended > to officially endorse anarchism, so I think a more moderate reading is > justified. I propose that the text be understood as being limited in > scope to power relationships in which participation is non-consensual > (FSVO, recognizing that different political philosophies have > different notions of what consent means). Hence, "master/slave" is > still out but we can use "client/server", "controller/agent", and > other such terms that still imply unequal power relationships but lack > connotations of coercion. Are a "brown out" and "blackouts" still legal, an is "I had a blackout" no longer an excuse? > > Finally, as to that footnote about "left/right". This seems to be > telling me that RFC 8280 ought not have spoken approvingly about > "human rights" and that we ought to rename our "intellectual property > rights" disclosures. "Right" as in "right-handed", "right" as in > "correct", and "right" as in "just entitlement" are not merely > homonyms; they're the same word with the same etymology, tracing to > the Proto-Indo-European "h₃reǵtós" which had all the same meanings. > The same root, with all its meanings preserved, shows up in other > modern Indo-European languages as well, such as the Spanish word > "derechos". Now, this is obviously ridiculous and not an intended > reading. I've never encountered anyone who sincerely thinks that > phrases like "human rights" are problematic, and surely I've gotten > too literal. But I'm struggling to come up with any more reasonable > interpretation. How am I to take this footnote seriously and give it > meaning, while avoiding this sort of inference? I think (as we know from politicians): As words don't make the world any better, words also don't make it worse. Isn't this all just a great waste of time and energy? Regards, Ulrich > > _______________________________________________ > ntp mailing list > ntp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp >
- [Ntp] Need guidance on interpreting NISTIR 8366 Daniel Franke
- Re: [Ntp] [Terminology] Need guidance on interpre… Salz, Rich
- Re: [Ntp] [Terminology] Need guidance on interpre… Karen O'Donoghue
- Re: [Ntp] [EXT] Need guidance on interpreting NIS… Ulrich Windl
- Re: [Ntp] [EXT] Need guidance on interpreting NIS… Daniel Franke