[ntpwg] Pending NTP WG Last Call on Autokey

[TS Glassey]

Rob - the Court Ruling from the US District Court in Lorraine V Markel (by 
Judge Paul W. Grimm on May 4th 2007) set the standard for what digital 
content and first-person v third-person type testimony models. This is now 
something that the world is going to address - and it changes what the world 
needs from timekeeping systems IMHO. What they need now is good or better 
resolution - and absolute reliability in the veracity of the logging 
therein. Without that - timesetting's are based on the credibility of the 
person making that setting IMHO.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Seaman" <seaman at noao.edu>
To: "NTP Working Group" <ntpwg at lists.ntp.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Pending NTP WG Last Call on Autokey


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