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

[TS Glassey]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danny Mayer" <mayer at ntp.org>
To: "Rob Seaman" <seaman at noao.edu>
Cc: "NTP Working Group" <ntpwg at lists.ntp.isc.org>; "DHC WG" <dhcwg at ietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: [ntpwg] [dhcwg] NTP option: IP address and/or FQDN


> 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.

NEA (the IETF's new effort would do this pretty well).

>>
>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ntpwg mailing list
> ntpwg at lists.ntp.org
> https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg