Subject: [Ntp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-08.txt> (Control Messages Protocol for Use with Network Time Protocol Version 4) to Historic RFC

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 12:31:11 -0700

The IESG has received a request from the Network Time Protocol WG (ntp) to
consider the following document: - 'Control Messages Protocol for Use with
Network Time Protocol Version 4'
  <draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-08.txt> as Historic RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
[email-masked] mailing lists by 2020-06-15. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

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 file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 12:17:24 -0500

This use of the "Historic" status seems utterly bizarre to me. It's 
certainly not how it's described in 2026.

1305 has already been obsoleted by 5905. This document simply gives 
information about what those control messages were and indicates that 
they ought no longer be used. This sounds like a fine candidate for 
Informational status. When 5905 (or it's successors) advance to 
Standard, this document can be included in the STD.

If eventually you want to move a document to Historic, it would be 1305.

I don't think publishing this straight to Historic makes sense.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best

---

From: "Ulrich Windl" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 09:31:44 +0200

>>> "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]> schrieb am 02.06.2020 um 19:17 in
Nachricht
<14808_1591124438_5ED6A1D6_14808_2895_1_45F5F313-BFC6-48BB-B5A3-D47C48AE87D6@epi
> they ought no longer be used. This sounds like a fine candidate for 

"They ought no longer to be used": ... once there is a well-established replacement!

So what to use instead? Mode-6 commands are essential for monitoring the service.

> I don't think publishing this straight to Historic makes sense.

With the argument given above, I also wouldn't name it "historic".

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 15:56:56 +0000

+1 for not making historic and "no longer used" until there is a standardized replacement. 

Greg Dowd  Microchip - Freq & Time Div.

Assoc. Technical Fellow - Engineering
3870 N First St, San Jose, CA 95134
Direct: 408-964-7643
[email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: ntp <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Ulrich Windl
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:32 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-08.txt> (Control Messages Protocol for Use with Network Time Protocol Version 4) to Historic RFC

EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe

Nachricht

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

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:20:20 -0400

Hi Pete,

     While I am responding to your note, I will capture thoughts related
to what others have said so far...

> certainly not how it's described in 2026.

It is a bit strange, but was done for a reason...

> I don't think publishing this straight to Historic makes sense.

There are two intents with this document.

The first is to capture mode 6 commands that were not defined within RFC
1305, Appendix B. If you compare the command sets, you will see several
additions in this draft. Several people have asked since the publication
of 5905 about some of those commands as they were not documented anywhere.

The second intent is to signal that mode 6/7 commands aren't/shouldn't
be used going forward. If you do a quick search for NTP vulnerabilities,
you will find many that relate to abuse of these commands. Additionally,
I/we received input (e.g., chronyd) no longer use these commands to
accomplish their stated function. That is where making the document
Historic seemed to make sense.

In the grand scheme of things, either Historic or Informational is a
viable document status. I (as document author) did not see consensus for
Standards Track, but that is not my call.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Harlan Stenn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 16:14:39 -0700

> Historic seemed to make sense.

Shennanigans.

That chronyd doesn't support them is their policy choice.

This document is about mechanism.

Many people use mode6 to perform what would be standardized monitoring
and control of the reference implementation of NTP.

To my knowledge, there is no defined alternative to the mode6.

As for mode7, by definition that is vendor-specific space.  The purpose
of the specification is to make it easy to identify these packets.

> Standards Track, but that is not my call.

I disagree.  If I was to speak for the NTP Project (which I can and am
happy to do), that would be a "disagree/no" from there, too.

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