[ntpwg] Pending NTP WG Last Call on Autokey

[Rob Seaman]

I'm concerned to see this bout of sniping - however, sniping was  
certainly one of the internet's earliest protocols.  (One might,  
however, tender the observation that some people have expertise in  
both physics and computer science - and in systems engineering and  
human factors, for that matter.)

Stripping away the ad hominem layer (as adding no signal to the  
discussion):

TS Glassey wrote:

> AutoKEY is not the only auth mechanism that NTP should support

Returning to the beginning of this thread:

David L. Mills wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> There really is no wiggle room other than deprecating  
>>>>>>>>>> Autokey in its present form and reformatting the headers. I  
>>>>>>>>>> am not opposed to that in principle, but others,  
>>>>>>>>>> specificlly USNO, have not been heard from.

Where is the disagreement?  There is a world of difference in any  
standards discussion, of course, between what should happen and what  
will happen.  The answer always lies in what needs to happen.

One is confident that a single workable consensus - not compromise -  
remains possible.

> broad-distribution models with this NTP is not possible.


Clarification, please, on what is meant by a "broad-distribution  
model"?  How, in detail, does broad-distribution differ from other  
kinds of distribution?  That is - describe the problem before  
suggesting a solution.

Does this thing called broad-distribution fall within the purview of  
NTP in any event?  And is the world really clamoring for it?  Does our  
world's social and technical infrastructure *need* "broad- 
distribution", or does this simply reside in the Hilbert space of what  
*should* be?

Rob Seaman
National Optical Astronomy Observatory
--
"Maybe all one can do is hope to end up with the right regrets."  -  
Arthur Miller