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

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 08:53:40 -0500 (EST)

[I attempted to send this note to the WG last Monday; it appears to 
have not made it to the archives, so I'm trying again.  Apologies for 
any duplicates.]

I'm delighted to see the WG progressing this doc - data minimization 
is important.  I have some small comments on -03:

Section 3, re: Transmit Timestamp field:

"uniformly at random" is a phrase that doesn't quite make sense to me. 
Could the doc clatify what is meant by "uniformly" in this case?  Or 
maybe remove that word?

Section 4.2, last paragraph:

I'm not used to seeing specific implementations called out in an RFC. 
Perhaps remove this paragraph?  If it must stay in, anonymize it with 
"Some implementations have..."

Poll field:

Like Marcus Dansarie, I noticed the mismatch in language (if not 
intent) between section 3:

     "The Poll field SHOULD be set to either the actual polling
     interval ... or zero."

And section 4:

     "Zeroing the poll field is made optional (MAY rather than
     SHOULD)..."

I would like to see a clear and consistent recommendation.  After 
talking with Harlan, I suggest "SHOULD be set to the actual value ... 
and MAY be set to zero."  I'll leave it to him to explain that choice. 
[And perhaps he did so between when I first sent this note and now.]

Generally:

Marcus Dansarie's 3 September comments appear to not have been 
addressed.

-- Sam

---

From: "Ulrich Windl" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 15:35:57 +0100

>>> Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]> schrieb am 13.11.2018 um 14:53 in Nachricht
<[email-masked]>:
> I'm delighted to see the WG progressing this doc ‑ data minimization 
> is important.  I have some small comments on ‑03:
> 
> 

I havent written it, but to me it means that every value has the samme
probability (as opposed to some random value with a normal distribution, for
example).

[...]

Regards,
Ulrich