Subject: [Ntp] WGLC: draft-ietf-ntp-interleaved-modes

From: Karen O'Donoghue <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:49:25 +0000

Folks,

This message initiates a three plus week working group last call for: 

NTP Interleaved Modes
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-interleaved-modes/

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 Friday 30 November. We realize this is a bit longer than normal but we are coming out of an IETF week and heading into the Thanksgiving holiday in the US. 

Thanks!
Karen and Dieter

---

From: Tal Mizrahi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 17:47:07 +0200

Hi,

I believe the draft is ready for publication, assuming the following
comments are resolved.

Comments:
- The draft header should say that it updates RFC5905 (although it is
interoperable with existing implementations, which is mentioned in the
draft).
- "but that is difficult to implement in the current packet" - please
clarify that it is difficult to implement unless a hardware timestamping
mechanism is used.
- Please clarify what "reference implementation" refers to, including a
citation.
- In Section 2, please describe what happens when a client request is lost,
and what happens when a server response is lost, i.e., how each of the two
sides re-synchronizes to the correct request/response.
- Security considerations section: (1) Please mention the potential
DoS/DDoS threats that may arise from the fact that the server maintains a
per-client state. (2) Please also consider the following threat: a spoofed
client request may cause the server's copy of the {receive,transmit}
timestamp pair to be updated, thereby causing DoS to the legitimate client.
(3) I would suggest to add a general comment to the security
considerations, something like: "The security considerations of time
protocols in general are discussed in [RFC7384], and specifically the
security considerations of NTP are discussed in [RFC5905].".

Cheers,
Tal.

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 10:49 PM Karen O'Donoghue <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 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 Friday 30 November. We realize this
> is a bit longer than normal but we are coming out of an IETF week and
> heading into the Thanksgiving holiday in the US.
>
> Thanks!
> Karen and Dieter
>
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
>

---

From: Miroslav Lichvar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 08:56:05 +0100

> I believe the draft is ready for publication, assuming the following

Thanks for the comments.

They all make sense to me and I'll try to address them in the next
version of the draft.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar

---

From: Karen O'Donoghue <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 20:38:12 +0000

Folks,

After receiving a few requests, I am going to extend this WGLC for one week. Please submit comments by COB on Friday 7 December. Even if you don’t have any comments, please indicate to the mailing list that you have read the draft and you believe it is ready for submission to the IESG. This is critical to helping the chairs determine working group consensus on this document. 

Regards,
Karen

> On Nov 6, 2018, at 3:49 PM, Karen O'Donoghue <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Folks,
>