Subject: [Ntp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-09.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 04:19:54 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Network Time Protocol WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Control Messages Protocol for Use with Network Time Protocol Version 4
        Author          : Brian Haberman
	Filename        : draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-09.txt
	Pages           : 21
	Date            : 2020-06-22

Abstract:
   This document describes the structure of the control messages that
   were historically used with the Network Time Protocol before the
   advent of more modern control and management approaches.  These
   control messages have been used to monitor and control the Network
   Time Protocol application running on any IP network attached
   computer.  The information in this document was originally described
   in Appendix B of RFC 1305.  The goal of this document is to provide a
   current, but historic, description of the control messages as
   described in RFC 1305 and any additional commands implemented in NTP.

   The publication of this document is not meant to encourage the
   developement and deployment of these control messages.  This document
   is only providing a current reference for these control messages
   given the current status of RFC 1305.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-09
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-09

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-09

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Harlan Stenn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 04:29:27 -0700

If the document is Informational, why remove several occurrences of:

   The reference implementation daemon requires authentication for
   this command.

-- 
Harlan Stenn <[email-masked]>
http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member!

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 15:01:19 +0000

I believe the WG does not wish to convey "reference implementation"  I would support keeping the sentence, perhaps, if it said "some"

---

From: Harlan Stenn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 18:42:37 -0700

On 6/22/2020 8:01 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
> I believe the WG does not wish to convey "reference implementation"

The WG as a whole certainly does not believe that.

I know some prefer to deny the heritage.

What do the people opposed to the "title" think the NTP Project has been
offering since 1985?  That there haven't been other full reference
implementations is certainly not the fault of the NTP Project.

> I would support keeping the sentence, perhaps, if it said "some"

What other full reference implementation is out there?

---

From: Heiko Gerstung <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 08:44:52 +0200

Hi,

I would second that, we always refer to ntpd as the reference implemenation, not only here at Meinberg but I hear this also from a lot of other people in the industry and community. 

Regards,
   Heiko

-- 
Heiko Gerstung 
Managing Director 
 
MEINBERG® Funkuhren GmbH & Co. KG 
Lange Wand 9 
D-31812 Bad Pyrmont, Germany 
Phone: +49 (0)5281 9309-404 
Fax: +49 (0)5281 9309-9404 
 
Amtsgericht Hannover 17HRA 100322 
Geschäftsführer/Management: Günter Meinberg, Werner Meinberg, Andre Hartmann, Heiko Gerstung 
 
Email: 
[email-masked]
Web: 
Deutsch https://www.meinberg.de
English https://www.meinbergglobal.com
 
Do not miss our Time Synchronization Blog: 
https://blog.meinbergglobal.com
 
Connect via LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/in/heikogerstung

Am 23.06.20, 03:43 schrieb "ntp im Auftrag von Harlan Stenn" <[email-masked] im Auftrag von [email-masked]>:

    _______________________________________________
    ntp mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp

---

From: "Ulrich Windl" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:06:02 +0200

>>> "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=[email-masked]> schrieb am 22.06.2020 um 17:01
in Nachricht
<11226_1592838104_5EF0C7D8_11226_82_1_3B598EB4-FCCE-4AD6-B524-7D35A05494F0@akama
.com>:

> I believe the WG does not wish to convey "reference implementation"  I would 
> support keeping the sentence, perhaps, if it said "some"

BUT wouldn't it make sense to agree on whether a command requires authentication or not? Leaving it to the implementer will not improve interoperability (if any).

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 17:15:48 +0000

>    The WG as a whole certainly does not believe that.

Sorry if I mislead you by not saying "the consensus of the WG"

>    I know some prefer to deny the heritage.

I cannot comment to that.

>    What other full reference implementation is out there?

The IETF does not have the concept of a reference implementation.  Maybe it used to.  But for a WG to use the term "reference implementation" it implies a cachet, at least, that is at odds with some of the core principles of interop and RFC's.  The IETF does not distribute source code, therefore it would also be wrong for the IETF to name someone as a reference implementation.

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 18:14:14 +0000

>    BUT wouldn't it make sense to agree on whether a command requires authentication or not? Leaving it to the implementer will not improve interoperability (if any).

Sure.

---

From: "Ulrich Windl" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 09:13:10 +0200

>>> "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=[email-masked]> schrieb am 23.06.2020 um 19:15
in Nachricht
<29470_1592932637_5EF2391A_29470_819_1_0402BACC-4569-41D9-AEE4-0D31E7F0888A@akam
i.com>:
> The IETF does not have the concept of a reference implementation.  Maybe it 
> used to.  But for a WG to use the term "reference implementation" it implies 
> a cachet, at least, that is at odds with some of the core principles of 
> interop and RFC's.  The IETF does not distribute source code, therefore it 
> would also be wrong for the IETF to name someone as a reference 
> implementation.

Maybe s/reference implementation/(?:most popular)? proof of concept implementation/ (not a valid regex, I know)

---

From: Harlan Stenn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 02:56:15 -0700

> Sorry if I mislead you by not saying "the consensus of the WG"

Thanks, and I believe the mislead was to more than just me.

> I cannot comment to that.

What is your opinion on the subject, then?

> The IETF does not have the concept of a reference implementation.
> Maybe it used to.  But for a WG to use the term "reference
> implementation" it implies a cachet, at least, that is at odds with
> some of the core principles of interop and RFC's.

The NTP Project's release has long been called the reference
implementation, in many IETF publications and discussions.  It's not an
implicit cachet, it's an obvious and long-standing fact.

The NTP Project's code base has, to date, been the base from which all
previous IETF NTP Standards have been based on.  Many have written
less-complete implementations that successfully interoperate with the
reference implementation and with other implementations.

What else could it be called?

Who gains by these attempts to strip the NTP Project's codebase of its
rightfully- and long-earned title as a (complete) reference
implementation of NTP?

> The IETF does not
> distribute source code, therefore it would also be wrong for the IETF
> to name someone as a reference implementation.

The IETF isn't naming anything.  The name/title came first, from outside
of the IETF.

By your logic, the IETF is also in no position to deny us that
name/title, either.

---

From: Miroslav Lichvar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 12:40:04 +0200

> implicit cachet, it's an obvious and long-standing fact.

Which RFCs use "reference implementation", beside RFC 5905 and RFC
5906?

> previous IETF NTP Standards have been based on.

Some were, but not all of them.

As I understand it, RFC 5905 was based on the latest ntp version at
the time of the draft. Newer versions of ntp have diverged slightly in
their behavior from the RFC and they don't support all the NTP RFCs
that have been published after that.

So, I think it would be correct to call a particular ntp version as the
"reference implementation of RFC 5905 (NTPv4)", but that doesn't work
for other versions.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar

---

From: Watson Ladd <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 06:49:29 -0400

> reference implementation and with other implementations.

The issue isn't with these historical facts: it's with the attitude
that you've brought to the WG where the reference implementation
decides the future of NTP, and other implementations have to follow
along. This has been a very real problem with assigning extension
codepoints. The contrast to TLS WG to name another I've been involved
with is obvious: Rich Salz and Bodo Moller maintain one of the most
used implementations that has long implemented new drafts ahead of
others. But they've never said "the implementation we maintain will do
X, so everyone else should go along", whereas it seems that at least
twice a month there is some lengthy argument where your position is
that the reference implementation needs more weight than others, for
things like extension space squatting or an unfortunate degree of
bitpacking in extension numbers.

If the future of NTP is to be determined by your implementation, that
raises serious questions about what the rest of us are doing here and
the openness of the process.

> By your logic, the IETF is also in no position to deny us that

The IETF is a standards body. Usually when someone discusses a
standard and the reference implementation of that standard they imply
the reference implementation has normative power: that matters not
settled from the standard are determined by the reference
implementation. That's not the role ntpd plays for the IETF's time
work, even if past RFCs were descriptions of ntpd's algorithm and
structure.

--
"Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains".
--Rousseau.

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 13:48:44 +0000

I have no informed opinion and will not comment.

Everyone and anyone who wants to do NTP without fear or favor.

    name/title, either.

I never said otherwise.  But the IETF should not use that term.

---

From: Daniel Franke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 13:57:43 -0400

> The IETF does not have the concept of a reference implementation.  Maybe it used to.  But for a WG to use the term "reference implementation" it implies a cachet, at least, that is at odds with som…

RFC 5905, Appendix A, does contain some code. I think it is
appropriate to refer to this code, and *exactly* this code, as a
reference implementation. It is also appropriate to acknowledge, as a
simple undisputed fact, that this code was historically derived from
the NTF's implementation. It is inappropriate to refer to any *other*
code as a reference implementation — not even other NTF code from the
same release that the code in Appendix A came from — regardless of how
well it may or may not adhere to the text of RFC 5905.

As a broader philosophical note, RFC 5905 is not the only example of
IETF including code in an RFC, but it's something we do sparingly, and
for good reason. Specifying a protocol only through an implementation
leaves it unclear what it is actually meant to be required for
compliance with the spec and what is an incidental implementation
detail. It should be done only as a last resort when the authors have
tried and failed to clearly communicate their intent in other ways.