[ntpwg] [dhcwg] NTP option: IP address and/or FQDN

[Danny Mayer]

Rob Seaman wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2007, at 8:55 AM, TS Glassey wrote:
> 
>> the key to this problem isn't technology - its the License.
> 
> and...
> 
> On Dec 10, 2007, at 6:46 AM, Danny Mayer wrote:
> 
>> What I think I'd like to do is go back to basics [...] I'm finding  
>> it rather difficult going from the the DHCP server/options forward  
>> without knowing or understanding the targets.
> 
> and...
> 
> On Dec 10, 2007, at 5:49 AM, Brian Utterback wrote:
> 
>> I suspect that if we see many more such situations, there will have  
>> to be a mechanism
>> installed in the Internet routers like the certificate revocation  
>> protocol in PKI. A way to tell all routers everywhere that certain  
>> IP addresses are never to be forwarded.
> 
> and...
> 
> On Dec 10, 2007, at 2:23 AM, <anthony.flavin at bt.com> <anthony.flavin at bt.com 
>  > wrote:
> 
>> The main problem with the DHCP doing the DNS lookup on behalf of  
>> it's NTP clients, is that architecturally, that's a complete mess.  
>> [...]
>>
>> So are we going to move some of the NTP features into DHCP, or  
>> accept where the boundaries are and let each system do what it's  
>> good at?
> 
> and...
> 
> On Dec 9, 2007, at 6:52 AM, MORAND Lionel RD-CORE-ISS wrote:
> 
>> But as a "client" of the dhc wg, I'm interested by a clear statement.
> 
> and on and on.
> 
> All this tussling over details has been very engaging.  The exchange  
> about motorcycles was particularly entertaining.  However, positional  
> negotiations are a poor way to arrive at a functioning consensus.   
> There seems to be some notion that we're involved in some zero sum  
> game and that there have to be losers as well as winners.  Rather,  
> this is a pure architectural design issue and the NTP edifice of all  
> will either stand or fall together.
> 
> The diversity of points of view is a strength of the working groups,  
> not a weakness.  Surely the need that is most evident here is to carry  
> out a coherent analysis of the trade-offs.  This is a rich literature  
> in system engineering, see for example:
> 
> 	http://www.sie.arizona.edu/sysengr/publishedPapers/quantitativeMethods.pdf
> 
> The first step to studying the trade-offs between several options is  
> to coherently describe those options.  Do we have a half-page  
> description for each of the major variations that have been  
> discussed?  You can't tell the players without a scorecard.  The  
> proposed solutions can be purely technical - or purely legal.
> 
> A lot of us are skeptical of licensing.  The way to make the case is  
> to provide explicit data, scoring functions, figures of merit,  
> sensitivity and risk analyses - not to simply state that licensing  
> will save the day.  A discussion and detailed dissection of a business  
> model(s) would be entirely appropriate, too.  How will corporate  
> entities react to licensing?  How will they react to changes to  
> technical standards?
> 
> By all means include both the status quo - and blue-sky solutions - in  
> the matrix of options to be scored.  We may be convinced already that  
> neither extreme will satisfice - but 1) we may be wrong, and 2)  
> including such extremes sharpens the challenge to the other proposed  
> solutions.
> 
> Simply elucidating the criteria key to such a trade-off is worth the  
> price of admissions to get us past comparing apples and oranges.  Yes,  
> yes - we want to keep inane vendors from fielding devices tailor made  
> for D.O.S., but is this really a complete list of the important NTP/ 
> DHCP issues?
> 
> NTP is as much a risk factor to DHCP as DLink has been to NTP.  Should  
> there be an attempt to characterize the full range of risks before  
> deciding which will result in actionable changes to technology (or to  
> its licensing)?
> 

This is exactly why I asked for a clear statement on what the target
DHCP clients are for the dhcp options being discussed. After that you
can discuss what is the best way to configure those target clients and
at that point once we have agreement on that (or at least an idea of
what is needed) we can provide a recommendation on the options.

Danny

> Rob Seaman
> National Optical Astronomy Observatory
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ntpwg mailing list
> ntpwg at lists.ntp.org
> https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg
>