[ntp:hackers] [Fwd: Re: ntp bof request for November 2004]

todd glassey todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net
Tue Oct 26 05:54:51 PDT 2004


David,
I dont see "Postel Encapsulation" as an issue - there are any number of us
that will honor your contract and repackage your work into IETF templates
(no matter how silly they are still) including PS images of Pogo too.

As to having a BOF for a WG, and wanting to create another WG, what's the
point? - If the problem was that the IETF was unresponsive to eTime and the
need for reliable eTime, then that is not likely to change this time around
either. Which brings us to the real issue - is a IETF WG of value to this
consortia? My take is YES it would be as long as the group can be controlled
so that this consortia's technology is what is standardized rather than that
of PKIX which is what happened. Especially when the PKIX people saw STime as
a threat to the RFC3161 "tike stamping" errr (SIC - time stamping) protocol
that was developed under PKIX.

I dont know if you remember the start of RFC3161 but McNeil and I and
possibly Greg D too as well as numerous others made commentary that NTP
itself could perform this function as well as deliver time itself since its
all about time tokens... anyway - PKIX was really offended and needed to do
something to distinguish the authors of that somewhat useless protocol IMHO.
What this does do is to show how politician and how "siloed" the IETF is,
and the threat of other voices and their agendas. Still however the creation
of a home for NTP within the IETF is of value to both the IETF and to this
WG and I would recommend that we entertain it at least.

One of the key things we would need to do is to replace the STime
Management, and that can be done with a simple wave of the AD's (Steve
Bellovin's) hand. I would assume that a number of us would be willing to run
for the management of this group - Greg would Symmetricom allow you to do
that - I myself dont have time. Karen - would you also?

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David L. Mills" <mills at udel.edu>
To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net>
Cc: "Greg Dowd" <GDowd at symmetricom.com>; <hackers at ntp.org>;
<odonoghueKF at NSWC.NAVY.MIL>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: [ntp:hackers] [Fwd: Re: ntp bof request for November 2004]


> Todd,
>
> The stime folks have been gone for two years. The last message I sent
> was never answered. Version 1 of the protocol left me but never made it
> past the editor's queue. When no action was apparent after a year, I
> made a substantial upgrade and rewrote the spec, which has been sitting
> for a year in PDF, not to be rendered in ASCII (full of equations,
> figures, etc.)
>
> What really frosts my glass is that the rfc2030 rewrite IS in Postel
> format and sitting on the editor's queue for 12 months now. Frankly, I
> see no redeeming value in this process. I have comitted to a NTPv4
> specification, but only in PDF or equivalent markup language. I don't do
> Postel format; that's even in my contract.
>
> Dave
>
> todd glassey wrote:
>
> >Was STime shutdown? - I thought Pat Cain was still chairing it. STime is
the
> >WG to do this in, and its McNeil and I created it for in the first place.
> >
> >Todd Glassey
> >
> >----- Original Message ----- 
> >From: "Greg Dowd" <GDowd at symmetricom.com>
> >To: "David L. Mills" <mills at udel.edu>; <hackers at ntp.org>
> >Cc: <odonoghueKF at NSWC.NAVY.MIL>
> >Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 1:37 PM
> >Subject: RE: [ntp:hackers] [Fwd: Re: ntp bof request for November 2004]
> >
> >
> >Any more detail on which day?  I don't see it in the agendae.
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: hackers-bounces at support.ntp.org
> >[mailto:hackers-bounces at support.ntp.org] On Behalf Of David L. Mills
> >Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 12:57 PM
> >To: hackers at ntp.org
> >Subject: [ntp:hackers] [Fwd: Re: ntp bof request for November 2004]
> >
> >
> >
> >-------- Original Message --------
> >Subject: Re: ntp bof request for November 2004
> >Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:05:49 -0400
> >From: Margaret Wasserman <margaret at thingmagic.com>
> >To: O'Donoghue Karen F DLVA <OdonoghueKF at NSWC.NAVY.MIL>,
> >narten at us.ibm.com
> >CC: mills at UDel.Edu, brian at innovationslab.net, "O'Donoghue Karen F
> >DLVA"
> ><OdonoghueKF at NSWC.NAVY.MIL>, agenda at ietf.org
> >References:
> ><7B4C28C84831D211BFA200805F9F3456091DE959 at nswcdlvaex04.nswc.navy.mil>
> >
> >
> >
> >Approved.  Text version of the request attached below.
> >
> >Margaret
> >
> >At 12:59 PM -0400 10/4/04, O'Donoghue Karen F DLVA wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Margaret and Thomas,
> >>
> >>We are interested in having a BOF at the November IETF to explore
> >>starting a working group to revise and update the NTP standard.  Brian
> >>Haberman has agreed to help me with the BOF itself. I have attached a
> >>document with drafts of the BOF description, agenda, and WG charter.
> >>Your feedback on these is welcome.
> >>
> >>Per instructions for requesting a BOF, I have copied agenda at ietf.org
> >>and request that you copy them on your decision.
> >>
> >>If we proceed with scheduling, I would like to request either Tuesday
> >>or Thursday afternoon if possible. Dr. Mills has indicated that he is
> >>available and willing to travel to DC during those timeframe.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>Karen
> >>
> >>**************************************
> >>Karen O'Donoghue
> >>Code B35, NSWCDD, 17320 Dahlgren Rd., Dahlgren, VA 22448
> >>+1-540-653-1567 (voice)
> >>+1-540-653-8673 (fax)
> >>+1-540-809-2905 (cell)
> >>odonoghuekf at nswc.navy.mil
> >>
> >>
> >
> >NTP BOF DESCRIPTION
> >===================
> >The Network Time Protocol (NTP) is widely deployed and used in the
> >Internet. However, the standardization status of this protocol has
> >lagged in the IETF. RFC 1305 was published in March 1992 and remains
> >unchanged and at Draft Standard status. A good deal of work has been
> >produced in the NTP community over the years since March 1992, but this
> >work has not been reflected back into the NTP specification. A number of
> >topics have been raised as potential work items for an update to NTP
> >including support for IPv6, security considerations, automatic
> >configuration, and algorithm improvements.
> >
> >The purpose of this BOF is to discuss an NTP WG in the IETF to update
> >the NTP protocol and advance the standardization status of NTP. The
> >current state of the protocol and the source(s) of ongoing work will be
> >discussed. A draft WG charter will be discussed to scope and prioritize
> >possible work in this area.
> >
> >
> >
> >NTP BOF AGENDA
> >==============
> >Network Time Protocol BOF (ntp)
> >
> >CHAIRS: Brian Haberman (brian at innovationslab.net)
> >        Karen O'Donoghue (odonoghuekf at nswc.navy.mil)
> >
> >Agenda
> > - Introduction and Agenda Bashing (5 min)
> > - Problem Statement, Scope and Status Overview (10 min)
> > - General Discussion (20 min)
> > - Proposed WG Charter (10 min)
> > - Charter Discussion and Wrap-up (15 min)
> >
> >Recommended References:
> > - RFC 2030 Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP) Version 4
> >   for IPv4, IPv6 and OSI (Status - Informational)
> > - RFC 1305 Network Time Protocol (Version 3)
> >   Specification, Implementation (Status - Draft Standard)
> > - NTPv4 Documentation at UDEL (TBS)
> >
> >Web page:  TBS
> >
> >Mailing list: TBS
> >
> >
> > NTP WG DRAFT CHARTER
> >====================
> >
> >Description of Working Group:
> >
> >The Network Time Protocol (NTP) is widely deployed and used in the
> >Internet. However, the standardization status of this protocol has
> >lagged in the IETF. RFC 1305 was published in March 1992 and remains
> >unchanged and at Draft Standard status. A good deal of work has been
> >produced in the NTP community over the years, but this work has not been
> >reflected back into the NTP specification. The goal of this working
> >group is to update the NTP protocol specification and advance the
> >standardization status of NTP based on the extensive work from the NTP
> >community.
> >
> >A number of topics have been raised as potential work items for an
> >update to NTP including support for IPv6, security considerations,
> >automatic configuration, and algorithm improvements. This working group
> >will identify modifications and additions to the NTP protocol, document
> >what is in the scope of this update, and produce a series of updated NTP
> >specifications.
> >
> >The working group will complete the following tasks:
> >- Produce an NTP Protocol Specification
> >- Produce an NTP Algorithms Specification
> >- Produce an NTP MIB
> >
> >Goals and Milestones:
> >
> >Mar 2005 Initial Draft of NTP Protocol Specification
> >May 2005 Initial Draft of MIB Specification
> >Jul 2005 Initial Draft of NTP Algorithms Specification
> >Mar 2006 WG Last Call NTP Protocol Specification
> >May 2006 WG Last Call NTP MIB Specification
> >Jul 2006 WG LAST Call NTP Algorithms Specification
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >hackers mailing list
> >hackers at support.ntp.org
> >https://support.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/hackers
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >hackers mailing list
> >hackers at support.ntp.org
> >https://support.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/hackers
> >
> >
>




More information about the hackers mailing list