[ntpwg] Pending NTP WG Last Call on Autokey

[Danny Mayer]

Rob Seaman 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.
> 

That is my reason for suggesting that we take a bit out of the header so 
that the current autokey implementation continues to work while enable 
the correct layout to be implemented in parallel. This is pretty 
straightforward stuff and allows us to move ahead.

>> 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?
> 

I have no clue what is meant by broad-distribution models and I have yet 
to see anywhere in the protocol where it's even mentioned, never mind 
required. Since there is no request to add that as a requirement, nor 
language to insert, I see no reason for discussing it further.

I have seen claims that that Autokey does not scale without any 
empirical evidence of this (and physicists love to see real data on 
this) nor is there any evidence that it is broken by design. There is 
nothing in the draft that requires scalability. We have been presented 
with no proof of how to decide whether or not it is broken or in what 
way. If the protocol design is flawed then we need that information 
presented before it can be fixed.

I discount legal opinions that do not even address these issues as they 
are not protocol requirements nor is the protocol the only way of 
addressing a legal issue.

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