Subject: [Ntp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-aanchal-time-implementation-guidance (On Implementing Time)

From: Karen O'Donoghue <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 21:10:32 +0000

Folks,

As per the discussion at IETF 103, this email starts a WG Call for Adoption for: 

On Implementing Time
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aanchal-time-implementation-guidance/

Please review the document and comment on the mailing list regarding the adoption of this document as a working group document. Note this means that we as a working group plan to review and comment on this work as it progresses. 

Thank you!
Karen and Dieter

---

From: Joachim Fabini <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 16:38:47 +0100

Hi Karen, all,

I've read the draft and initially planned to express my support for
adoption (still do it, but conditionally). Some suggestions in my
supporting email identified a structural problem and it turned out that
splitting the implementation-guidance draft into two distinct documents
brings benefits.  Please find my comments and proposal below, feel free
to comment.

Imo the draft mixes up two important aspects: (1) Time terminology (that
is independent of operating systems, protocols, hardware) and (2) time
implementation guidance (likely to change with time).

1. Terminology. To the best of my knowledge there is no ultimate and
comprehensive (IETF) protocol-independent reference of time-related
terms and concepts. Such a document is (imo) needed and can be a truly
valuable contribution. The challenge is to define the vocabulary in a
protocol-independent way. But merging sections 3 and 4 of
time-implementation-guidance with terms and definitions within other
RFCs may yield a good compromise with reasonable effort.
In particular section 10 of RFC2330,
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2330#section-10.1  defines already
essential clock-related concepts on top of which the IPPM (IP
Performance Metrics Framework) is built. Examples include accurate
clocks, precise clocks, clock resolution, skew, drift, etc. (*) - terms
that the time implementation guide will need for sure, too.

2. Implementation Guidance
Outsourcing the terms and definitions part to an own document permits
the implementation guide to focus on the actual challenges.

Summarizing, the definitions in the terminology section of the
implementation draft are essential for past, present and future
time-related discussions and documents. Before realizing this structural
issue I planned to suggest adding the clock-related concepts of RFC2330
to the implementation-guide draft's definitions section.

But now I truly believe that an own time terminology draft is more helpful.

So my proposal is to adopt the time-implementation-guidance draft but
shift its protocol-independent definitions to a new time terms and
definitions draft. If needed I'm volunteering to contribute to the latter.

thanks,
Joachim

(*) A valid question is why the RFC2330 clock definitions are defined as
part of the IPPM framework and not in a larger context. Anyhow, they are
useful and have stood the test of time...

On 11/6/18 10:10 PM, Karen O'Donoghue wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
>