Subject: [Ntp] Minutes from NTP session at IETF 103

From: "Dieter Sibold" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 20:14:53 +0100

Hi all,

please find the minutes from the NTP session at the last IETF meeting 
(103) below.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/minutes-103-ntp-00.txt

- Dieter

NTP WG Meeting
==============

IETF 103 - Bangkok.
Marriott Marquis Queen's Park
Location: Boromphimarn 1/2
Date:     Tuesday, November 6, 2018, 16:10 - 18:10 UTC+7 (9:10 - 11:10 
UTC)
Chairs:   Karen O'Donoghue, Dieter Sibold
AD:       Suresh Krishnan
Presentation materials: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/session/ntp

(remote participation via meetecho)

Note tacker: Dieter Sibold
Jabber: Rich Salz

1.  CHAIR'S SLIDES
------------------
Presenter: Karen O'Donoghue
Slides: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-ntp-ntp-wg-chair-slides-00

Summary:
- Karen presents the Note Well
- No agenda bashing

2. TICTOC WG STATUS
-------------------

    - YANG Data Model for IEEE 1588-2008 is in the second IETF LC
      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang
       - Suresh:
           - placed a disclaimer that the IEEE 1588 standard is not 
available openly
           - There was an issue that IESG members thought that the 
document cannot be
             good enough reviewed because the standard is not available
           - Before start of the second IETF LC Karen arranged that 
reviewer will get
             access to this document upon request (no request upon now)
           - After IETF LC this will go back to IESG
           - The IEEE 1588 Enterprise Profile will have the same issue

     - IEEE 1588 Enterprise Profile
       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile
       - Karen: this document is going to be passed to IESG

     - TICTOC WG is about to be closed if those documents are published. 
All time
       related work will be moved to the NTP WG.

3. NTP WG STATUS
----------------

    -  Message Authentication Code for the Network Time Protocol
       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ntp-mac
       - Karen: is in IESG review process
       - Suresh: IETF LC has been extended because of the IETF week.
         It will finish the Monday after the IETF 103
       - Suresh: will be considered at next IESG telechat 2018-11-25
       - Suresh: It's already been with the Sec AD.
       - Suresh: one reviewer ask if backward compatibility is ensured
       - Aanchal: NTP provides algorithm agility.

    -  Control Messages Protocol for Use with NTPv4
       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds
       - will go to the IESG after the shepherd writeup is finished

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

    - Suresh: comments about BCP. During IETF LC the status as BCP was 
discussed. We
              should think about that.
    - Karen: This should be a BCP (also recommended by Brian)
    - Karen: It is intended to answer all comments of the IETF LC and 
afterwards
             go through the whole document to make the language more BCP 
like.

4.  GUIDELINES FOR DEFINING PACKET TIMESTAMPS
---------------------------------------------
     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps
     Presenter: Tal Mizrahi
     Slides: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-ntp-packet-timestamp-formats-00
     Summary:
     - Some comments are still open. Shall be addressed during WGLC
     - Next steps: WGLC went out one hour ago.

5.  NTS FOR NTP (DRAFT -14)
---------------------------
       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp
       Presenter: Dieter Sibold
       Slides: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-ntp-update-of-network-time-security-for-the-network-time-protocol-00
       Summary:
       - Daniel ask for changes between the version -12 und -13
       - Karen, Dieter: Version -13 includes the additions proposed by 
the draft draft-dansarie-nts-00
       - Next steps: WLGC agreed with no objections

6.  NTS IMPLEMENTATIONS AND INTEROPERABILITY TESTING
----------------------------------------------------
	- Karen: We have done Hackathon project in London and Montreal. No 
project at Bangkok,
	         because key implementors are not here.
	
	- NTF's NTS Implementation
	  Richard:
	  - partial interoperability with the implementation of Martin Langer
	  - full interoperability wihtin 2 weeks (draft -12)
	  - After that separation of key exchange and time server
	
	Any other updates?
	- Dieter: Martin Langer supervised a student project at the Univ. of 
Applied Science
	  Ostfalia that successfully implemented NTS
	
	- Aanchal plans to implement NTS in GO-Language for interoperability 
testing
	
	Interop Testing plans
	- Karen: Implementation work is planned also for the next Hackathon in 
Prag
	
	- Karen: will setup a mailing list for implementation efforts. It will 
be announced
	         at the NTP mailing list

7.  A SECURE SELECTION AND FILTERING MECHANISM FOR THE NTPV4
-------------------------------------------------------------
     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-schiff-ntp-chronos
     Presenter: Nita Schiff
     Slides: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-ntp-a-secure-selection-and-filtering-mechanism-for-the-network-time-protocol-version-4-00
     Summary:
     - No comments and questions
     - Next steps:
       - Compare Chronos and NTP with respect ot accuracy and precision
       - Revise the draft based on the discussion on the mailing list
       - Present a updated version at the next IETF meeting

8.  NETWORK TIME PROTOCOL BEST CURRENT PRACTICES
------------------------------------------------
     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ntp-bcp
     - Karen: Document is in IETF LC
     - Denis: many comments from reviewers. Currently, most comments are 
incorporated in a
       the new version of the draft (accessible on Github)
     - Denis. this new version will be submitted within the next days 
(version -08)
     - Denis: most reviewer require more precise language. Therefore a 
complete re-draft
       of the document will straighten the language (version -09)
     - Karen: are all comments answered?
     - Denis: all except GENART
     - Suresh: Are Joe Touch and Nick comments answered?
     - Denis: will check and otherwise reply
     - Karen: what is the timeframe for the revised version (version 
-09)?
     - Denis: Within a week or two, certainly before the end of this 
month
     - Suresh: Will it be ready before the  telechat in December?
     - Denis: Yes

9.  LEAPSECOND LIST MAINTENANCE
-------------------------------
     Karen: Leap second file 
https://www.ietf.org/timezones/data/leap-seconds.list
            - maintained by Judah Levine
            - Question: Is this still in use by implementations?
            - If it is still in use we need to document how it will be 
maintained.
     Denis: My impression was that it is maintained with the timezone 
database
     Karen: The maintenance ot the timezone database was transfered to 
IANA and there
            is a RFC that describes the maintenance. The leap second 
file is not
            part of it.
     Harlan: cannot hear Denis
     Martin Burnicki (chat): The leap second file is part of the 
timezone database
     Karen: The key is that there is this one file on the IETF website 
that appears not
            to be maintained. Need to have some volunteers that help to 
clarify how to
            proceed with this file.
     Karen: Can we get rid of this file if we don't need it?
     Jared: We can remove it. If this breaks something  we could quickly 
write a document
            that describes how it is maintained
     Harlan (chat): If the IETF will not maintain it the NTF will do it.
     Karen: If it is needed for an IETF protocol the IETF is happy to 
maintain it. It
            just have to be documented. That is right now not the case.
     Jared: If there is a standard (not just a implementation) that 
requires this file
            it should be document (accessibility, format, etc.)
     Harlan (chat): NTP uses this files
     Karen: Harlan and Martin can you work with me on that?
     Jared: if there is no WG or IETF document that requires this file 
it should be removed
     Next steps: Discussion this offline. Harlan, Martin B., Denis will 
work on this.

10.  NTP INTERLEAVE MODE
------------------------
      No presentation
      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ntp-interleaved-modes
      Miroslav: No changes in the document
      Miroslav: Issue raised on previous meeting: NAT will break the 
client-server
                interleave mode.
                This is not an issue. Posted link to a minimum 
implementation.
                This demonstrates that this is not really an issue. It 
also shows that an
                implementation of this protocol is quite simple.
      Karen: is this document ready for WGLC?
      Mirsolav: Yes
      Next steps:  WGLC (no objections)
      Harlan: It requires state information on the server
      Miroslav: Yes, small state information is needed (16 Byte per 
client)

11. ON IMPLEMENTING TIME
-------------------------
       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-aanchal-time-implementation-guidance-01
       Slides: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-ntp-on-implementing-time-00
       Presenter: Aanchal Malhotra

       Rich: I have problems seeing where this would go.
       Aanchal: Planned to be published as a informational document.
       Kyle: Remains me of the Consideration of randomness RFC. It 
provides guidance for
             implementors. It seems useful.
       Suresh: Agree, it should be published as Informational. If it is 
not publish than
               keep it on a group wiki. The content is static. Therefore 
it should be
               published as informational draft.
       Karen: WG chair hat off. This should be published as an RFC. A 
wiki page wouldn't be
              appropriate.
       Suresh: Sometimes a Wiki is useful. Especially if the content is 
very dynamic.
               But this should be published.
       Karen: is there opposition to adopt this as a WG document? No 
opposition!
       Next steps: Call for WG adoption

12. NETWORK TIME PROTOCOL REFID UPDATES
---------------------------------------
       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ntp-refid-updates
       Karen: This started a three different proposals for RefIDs.
              I asked them to combine them into one.
              Now, two of the proposals are pretty solid, one is 
controversial.
              We therefore ask them to pull them apart (into two 
documents).
              This have been done. The RefID update draft is stable now
       	     The leap smearing was removed from this draft and submitted 
separately.
       Next steps: WGLC

13. NTP CORRECTION FIELD
------------------------
       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mlichvar-ntp-correction-field
       Miroslav: - A new version has been submitted.
                 - Now it uses the format of the PTP correction field. 
Existing HW
                   can interpret it.
       Karen: Please discussed this with Tal. Please indicate if you 
both agree.
       Next steps: WG Adoption call if agreement with Tal is achieved

14. NTPV4 SHORT EXTENSION FIELDS
--------------------------------
       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mlichvar-ntp-short-extension-fields-00
       Miroslav:
       - This is a new draft allowing short EF
       - It is compatible with RFC 7822
       - No ambiguity with parsing
       - Allows shorter EF as with 7822
       - Is a alternative proposal to draft 
draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields
       - Harlan: not happy with this draft. Want to discuss this on the 
mailing list
       - Karen: EF related drafts are devided into two categories:
           1. draft which describes how EF work
           2. drafts which specifies new types of EFs
         Drafts in the first category needs to be considered to 
changing, updating or
         extending RFC 7822
         WG should read it. Well write, clear and precise.
       - Next steps: discussion on the mailing list

15.  A YANG DATA MODEL FOR NTP
------------------------------
       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model
       Karen:
       - an Yang Doctor's review has been done.
       - They plan an update based on the feedback obtained
       - It is ready for WGLC once it is updated.
       - The only real issue was about how much details to put into the 
descriptions
       Harlan: is concerned not to see much detail in the draft. Should 
it not be more
               like RFC 5907?
       Karen: Possibly? Would be good if such comments would be 
submitted much earlier.
       Next step: Issue an WGLC if the next update is submitted

16. ADDITIONAL EXTENSION FIELD PROPOSALS
----------------------------------------
       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stenn-ntp-extended-information/
       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stenn-ntp-i-do/
       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stenn-ntp-mac-last-ef/
       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stenn-ntp-suggest-refid/
       Karen: these should be updated to conform to 7822
       Harlan: each of these drafts supports padding within the EF. 
Therefore
               compatibility with 7822 is given
       Karen: ask for objections for WG adoption. No objections.
       Next steps: will ask for call for adoption on the mailing list

17. AOB
-------
- Encourage remote presenters to use to test tools provided by the 
meetecho team.
- Please read the draft draft-stenn-ntp-leap-smear-refid-01. Discussion 
has to go to
   the mailing list.
- Two interim meeting prior to IETF 104 are planned.

18. Wrap Up (5 min)

---

From: Ask Bjørn Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 20:56:00 +0100

> On Nov 18, 2018, at 20:14, Dieter Sibold <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>    - Next steps:

I hope number of DNS and NTP queries will be considered as well. For service operators those are important metrics.

Ask

-- 
http://askask.com/