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

[Brian Haberman]

Danny,
      These comments come from an IESG member, so we need to address 
them in some way.  That can either be via document changes where needed 
or discussions (e.g., e-mail) with the AD or reviewer who raised the issue.

Regards,
Brian

Danny Mayer wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
> 
>