[ntpwg] Pending NTP WG Last Call on Autokey

[Rob Seaman]

I'm only replying further because my words and Danny's are getting  
interchanged.

TS Glassey wrote:

> The issues are VERY clear and very specific.

A legal opinion can only function to inform use cases and  
requirements, not systems developed from those requirements.  Which is  
to say that it may or may not be very clear and specific what the  
implications are for defining the problem, but nothing has been said  
or will be said by any jurist about defining any engineering solution  
responsive to those requirements.

I, for one, don't find that the legal requirements have been clearly  
stated as yet.

The commentaries I've seen focus on some legal process distinction  
between the discovery of evidence and its admission at trial.   
Similarly, requirements must be discovered before they are addressed  
by a system engineering process.

Additional unhelpful ad hominem (a very legal notion) statements  
deleted.  In particular, there are no engineers getting rich off  
this :-)

> 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.

All software systems are best regarded as (functional, if you're  
lucky) prototypes.  The question is whether a particular solution is  
satisfactory for some purpose, for some period of time.  Focus on that  
question, not on whether NTP is optimum.  No system is optimum for all  
purposes.

One might be naturally skeptical of doing work for free for a legal  
system that will only repay that effort in the future with unending  
subpoenas :-)  If the U.S. government wants a legally mandated  
timekeeping system, they should fund same.

Rob