[ntpwg] Pending NTP WG Last Call on Autokey

[TS Glassey]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Seaman" <seaman at noao.edu>
To: "NTP Working Group" <ntpwg at lists.ntp.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Pending NTP WG Last Call on Autokey


> Danny Mayer wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Todd didn't answer any of my (pretty rhetorical) questions,

Danny if in the middle of your slamming my ideas and concerns there was an 
Idea I was supposed to respond to it wasnt apparent. The issues are VERY 
clear and very specific.

> but made
> it clear that his third of this discussion centers on specifying legal
> requirements.  Dave (quite understandably) appears to want to simply
> put this puppy to bed.

You mean to release yet another instance of an NTP that is 'the same as it 
used to be' - I understand the need to keep it status quo - that's why 
people like the OpenNTP team have their release and this WG has its.

> I doubt I'm alone in finding this an
> attractive option.


You mean because a number of the WG's people are not interested in building 
a system that is particularly implemented because of the strength of the 
evidence model it creates? I totally understand - we are talking about what 
people to to earn a living - making this an issue of... Oh my - people's 
putting their personal and professional financial status above the needs of 
the world regarding NTP?


> Your "third way" position is:
>
>> 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.
>
> My reaction to this is from http://www.dspcsp.com/tictoc:
>
>>> The NTP Working Group is currently standardizing the fourth version
>>> of NTP for time distribution over IP networks. The NTP WG has
>>> focused its deliverables largely on standardizing the currently
>>> deployed NTPv4, while collecting requirements for future
>>> extensions. These requirements will transition to the TICTOC WG for
>>> further development.
>
> Why now, rather than later?  Wouldn't a staged deployment be prudent?
> Or perhaps there is something here I'm missing?

Because if any more work was done on a 'proper' distribution, one which 
meets the commercial auditing needs for timekeeping in IT frameworks, much 
of the work done over the past couple of years may need to be redone - based 
on the "Digital Evidence needs" controlling this effort.

> If so, I also doubt  I'm alone in this.
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ntpwg mailing list
> ntpwg at lists.ntp.org
> https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg