[ntpwg] Pending NTP WG Last Call on Autokey

[David L. Mills]

Todd,

I'd really like to understand your points. What are "first-person v 
third-person type testimony models"? The court expressed the need for 
improved resolution. The resolution of the PTP and NTP representation is 
today better than the time light travels one foot. There must be 
something else here.

The more interesting point is "absolute reliability in the veracity of 
the logging therin". We computer science and engineering types interpret 
that as impossible to do. We can provide massive redundancy and 
diversity and clever mitigation algorithms at sometimes considerable 
cost. The computer science community has tossed this issue around for 
many years. We cannot provide "absolute reliability". Surely, competent 
counsel and consultants should have made that point. Go talk to the 
patent lawyers; they are engineers.

Now, where is the lesson here for the NTP community? You have predicted 
dire consequences and meltdown. Be more specific. What is broken and 
what is to fixed? We need an engineering colloquy, not a legal brief.
 
Dave

Dave

TS Glassey wrote:

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