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

[Danny Mayer]

Brian,

When you say that the following issues are still unresolved, do you just
mean that the document still needs to be updated or do you mean that
there is further discussion needed, or something else?

Danny

Brian Haberman wrote:
> 
> -------- 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ntpwg mailing list
> ntpwg at lists.ntp.org
> https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg
> 
> 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.