[ntpwg] [Fwd: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-ntp-autokey]

[Brian Haberman]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-ntp-autokey
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec.com>
To: iesg at ietf.org
CC: jmh at joelhalpern.com,ntp-chairs at tools.ietf.org, 
draft-ietf-ntp-autokey at tools.ietf.org

Discuss:

   The Gen-ART Review by Joel Halpern on 5-June-2009 has lead to some
   discussion with the authors.  Not all of the issues have been
   resolved, but it is clear that some changes to the document are
   needed.  The following issues are still unresolved.

   The usage within Autokey of the extension field need description early
   in the document.  Paragraph 3 of Section 10 reserves seven values (1-7)
   Autokey. The "Field Type" field performs two roles: identification as
   an Autokey extension and defining the type within Autokey.

   Section 11.1 includes a 16 bit Digest / Signature NID.  There is no
   description of how this is used.

   The wording on hierarchy in section 5, paragraph 3 is the opposite of
   what is shown in the figure.  (The figure matches expectations, where
   a client of one group operates as the TH of a group operating at a
   lower stratum.)

   In Section 10, the paragraph that begins "[T]he extension field parser
   initializes a pointer..." is incorrect.  The "length" by which the
   pointer is increment is the length in the extension header, not the
   length computed by subtracting the NTP header from the packet length.

   In figure 5, it would help the reader if the groups and hosts had
   different names.  (Even just calling the groups Alice-Group and
   Carol-Group would help.)

   In section 5, in the description of "[t]he steps in hiking the
   certificate trails...", in step 1, in the second sentence, please add
   language to make it clear that the server is "exchanging host names
   and negotiating..." with is the server from whom it is getting
   information.

   Section 8 should be moved earlier in the document.  Early parts of the
   document assume an understanding of properties of the system which
   have not been described yet.

   Section 11.6 (Security Considerations) is supposed to be a top-level
   section.