[ntpwg] Pending NTP WG Last Call on Autokey

[Danny Mayer]

Rob Seaman wrote:
> 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, 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.  I doubt I'm alone in finding this an  
> attractive option.  Your "third way" position is:
> 

Right. This draft is not a legal requirements document, it's a technical 
protocol document.

>> 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:
> 

TICTOC has a different agenda.

>>> 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?  If so, I also doubt  
> I'm alone in this.
> 

I want to get this out too. The trouble is that I want to do this right 
rather than do it over much later when it's much harder to recover. Dave 
is rarely wrong about NTP but we are talking about interoperability and 
extensibility and crippling the protocol at the beginning limits its 
usefulness.

Danny