Subject: Re: [Ntp] WGLC: draft-ietf-ntp-data-minimization

From: Karen O'Donoghue <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2018 01:24:18 +0000

Folks,

As discussed on Thursday’s NTP WG call, we will be extending this WGLC for one week. Please respond with your review/approval of this draft by Friday 7 September 2018.

Everyone please take a few minutes to review and comment on the draft.

Thank you!
Karen

On Aug 15, 2018, at 4:44 PM, Karen O'Donoghue <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Folks,

This message initiates a two week working group last call for:

NTP Client Data Minimization
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-data-minimization/

Please review the referenced document and send any comments to the mailing list including your assessment of whether this document is mature enough to proceed to the IESG. Please note that these messages of support for progression to the mailing list will be used to determine WG consensus to proceed.

Please send all comments in by COB on Thursday 29 August 2018.

Thanks!
Karen and Dieter
_______________________________________________
ntp mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp

---

From: Marcus Dansarie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 20:08:12 +0200

Having read the version 02 of the draft and looked over the diff with
version 03, here are my short comments:

* First and foremost: The draft is good and well-written. It concisely
describes the problem of NTP data leakage and its mitigation. I support
advancing this I-D.

* There are two unnecessary comma splices in section 1: One in the
sentence "Server implementations never need to inspect them, and
they..." and the other in the sentence "It calls for no changes on the
server side, and clients which..."

* The requirements language in section 2 should be updated in accordance
with BCP 14/RFC 8174.

* In section 3, RFC 4086 should be referred to as such, i.e. changing
the sentence that starts with "[RFC4086] provides guidance..." to "RFC
4086 [RFC4086] provides guidance..." Alternately, references to RFCs by
names, such as in the first sentence of section 1, should be changed so
that the document uses the same style throughout.

* In section 3, the sentence "The Poll field MAY be set..." was changed
to "The Poll field SHOULD be set..." The third paragraph of section 4.1
should be updated accordingly. It currently reads "Zeroing the poll
field is made optional (MAY rather than SHOULD)..."

Kind regards,
Marcus Dansarie

On 2018-09-02 03:24, Karen O'Donoghue wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> As discussed on Thursday’s NTP WG call, we will be extending this WGLC
> for one week. Please respond with your review/approval of this draft by
> Friday 7 September 2018. 
> 
>> Please review the referenced document and send any comments to the
>> mailing list including your assessment of whether this document is
>> mature enough to proceed to the IESG. Please note that these messages
>> of support for progression to the mailing list will be used to
>> determine WG consensus to proceed. 
>>
>> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> [email-masked]