Subject: [ntpwg] Harlan as Hero

From: mills at udel.edu (David L. Mills)
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 03:21:32 +0000

Guys,

Harlan managed to bash the XML document to RFC. I made a few very minor 
changes in the XML (organization and broken reference). It still needs a 
list of figures, but everything else looks clean and shiny.

XML www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp4.xml
RFC www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp4.txt

The documents are queued for overnight transmission to the web. The 
links on the NTP project page are correct as well.

What's next?

Dave

---

From: kurt at roeckx.be (Kurt Roeckx)
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 13:21:27 +0100

> RFC www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp4.txt

Figure 16 still looks wrong to me.  I've attached a diff of what I think
it should look like.

Kurt

-------------- next part --------------
--- ntp4.xml.old	2007-03-10 13:14:23.000000000 +0100
+++ ntp4.xml	2007-03-10 13:15:51.000000000 +0100
@@ -735,13 +735,13 @@
 <artwork xml:space="preserve">
               t2            t3           t6            t7
          +---------+   +---------+   +---------+   +---------+
-     T1  |    0    |   |    t2   |   |   t4    |   |    t6   |
+     T1  |    0    |   |    t1   |   |   t3    |   |    t5   |  Packet
          +---------+   +---------+   +---------+   +---------+
-     T2  |    0    |   |    t1   |   |   t3    |   |    t5   |  Packet
+     T2  |    0    |   |    t2   |   |   t4    |   |    t6   |
          +---------+   +---------+   +---------+   +---------+ Variables
-     T3  |t2=clock |   |    t2   |   |t6=clock |   |    t6   |
+     T3  |   t1    |   |t3=clock |   |   t5    |   |t7=clock |
          +---------+   +---------+   +---------+   +---------+
-     T4  |   t1    |   |t3=clock |   |   t5    |   |t7=clock |
+     T4  |t2=clock |   |    t2   |   |t6=clock |   |    t6   |
          +---------+   +---------+   +---------+   +---------+
                                                                 Peer B
          +---------+   +---------+   +---------+   +---------+
@@ -763,13 +763,13 @@
 
              t1            t4            t5             t8
          +---------+   +---------+   +---------+   +---------+
-     T1  |    0    |   |    t2   |   |   t4    |   |    t6   |
+     T1  |    0    |   |    t1   |   |   t3    |   |    t5   |  Packet
          +---------+   +---------+   +---------+   +---------+
-     T2  |    0    |   |    t1   |   |   t3    |   |    t5   |  Packet
+     T2  |    0    |   |    t2   |   |   t4    |   |    t6   |
          +---------+   +---------+   +---------+   +---------+ Variables
-     T3  |    0    |   |t4=clock |   |   t4    |   |t8=clock |
+     T3  |t1=clock |   |    t3   |   |t5=clock |   |    t7   |
          +---------+   +---------+   +---------+   +---------+
-     T4  |t1=clock |   |    t3   |   |t5=clock |   |    t7   |
+     T4  |    0    |   |t4=clock |   |   t4    |   |t8=clock |
          +---------+   +---------+   +---------+   +---------+
                                                                 Peer A
          +---------+   +---------+   +---------+   +---------+

---

From: brian at innovationslab.net (Brian Haberman)
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 07:58:20 -0500

Figure 3 is busted.  Line 572 contains characters well beyond the 72
character limit.  This must be fixed.

Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
  * There are 119 instances of weird spacing in the document.  Is it
    really formatted ragged-right, rather than justified?

These all appear to be in the example code in the appendix.

  * There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in
    the document.

This is a non-issue since the domain being referenced (www.ntp.org) is
completely valid.

  * There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC3330-compliant IPv4
    addresses in the document.  If these are example addresses, they
    should be changed.

Again, not an issue since the addresses are assigned to NTP.

David L. Mills wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> ntpwg mailing list
> ntpwg at lists.ntp.isc.org
> https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg

---

From: mills at udel.edu (David L. Mills)
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:26:34 +0000

Kurt,

You speak the truth. I didn't check the original artwork carefully 
enough. I corrected the XML with align with Figure 3 of the reference 
and implementation guide.

I am hoping for a swarm of eyeballs on this thing.

Dave

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ntp.isc.org/pipermail/ntpwg/attachments/20070310/9ac89dc2/attachment.html

---

From: mills at udel.edu (David L. Mills)
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:54:54 +0000

Brian,

Thanks for the eyeballs; Figure 3 is repaired in ntp4.xml. By the way, 
edits by me will appear in the overnight upload.

Harlan will probably chime in here; however, what you see is what 
xml2rfc does. There are very many instances of wierd spacing in the 
figures and appendix artwork. This is very purposeful, as the C-code in 
the appendix is in source code format.

Dave

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ntp.isc.org/pipermail/ntpwg/attachments/20070310/c8c33469/attachment.html

---

From: stenn at ntp.isc.org (Harlan Stenn)
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 19:21:46 +0000

Brian,

I had to change all of Dave's <table> blocks to <figure> blocks.

Is this to be expected?  Is there a way to use <table> blocks in the xml
source?

I basically repeatedly fed Dave's original source to the translator,
looked at the resulting error message, went in to the source and beat on
things to make the error message go away (for some things a single error
message resulted in a bunch of similar fixes thruout the document).
When the document itself passed, I went thru and resolved any problems I
could find with anchors and cross-references.

I was never able to get xemacs with SGML editing to work with the
rfc2629.dtd stuff, which I figured might have made some of this easier.

H

---

From: stenn at ntp.isc.org (Harlan Stenn)
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 19:34:47 +0000

> Is this to be expected?  Is there a way to use <table> blocks in the xml

I just found the texttable thing in the updated almost RFC replacement.

Are we using the current RFC dtd or is it OK to use the new one?

If the new one is OK, should we use the new features?

H

---

From: karen.odonoghue at navy.mil (Odonoghue, Karen F CIV NSWCDD, W13)
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 05:18:28 -0500

Dave (and the whole NTP WG),

You asked the question, what is next...

Harlan has graciously taken your revision of the -04 draft
and generated the specified internet-draft format. (Thanks to
Jim/Jack/Bill for the original document, you (Dave Mills) 
for the markup, and Harlan for the reformatting). We are
making progress...

This will be submitted to the internet-drafts repository as
the -05 draft as soon as the internet-drafts window opens 
up again. 

We will then begin another period of soliciting for comments,
this time on the -05 draft. 

In order to gain traction on the document, Brian and I have
decided to solicit these comments in a more formal manner, much
like the RFC Editor does. 

Comments will need to be submitted to the official NTP WG 
mailing list (this list). 

Comments should be in the following format.

            1)*** SECTION #'s***  [i.e. Section 5, 2nd paragraph]
            2) the text you want changed,
            3) the new correct text and
            4) if the changes are spacing or indentation than please
note
            that.

Please comment on changes to the -05 document (when available). 
Please do not send a new document with any changes already 
incorporated.

Comments will be discussed on the list, and the editor that draws
the short straw will get the onerous task of incorporating the
agreed upon changes. 

Folks that would like to get a head start can view the draft at:
www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp4.txt. This is a temporary site until
the draft moves to the official internet-drafts repository. 

We really need folks to read the draft and provide comments.
All the editors and Dr. Mills have observed the general lack of
feedback. This makes their job harder. Please review and speak up.

Also, don't forget there is a newly posted NTP MIB for review as 
well.

Thanks again for all the recent effort put into getting this document
revised.

Regards,
Karen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> ntpwg-bounces+karen.odonoghue=navy.mil at lists.ntp.isc.org 
> [mailto:ntpwg-bounces+karen.odonoghue=navy.mil at lists.ntp.isc.o
rg] On Behalf Of David L. Mills 
> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 22:22
> To: ntpwg at ntp.isc.org
> Subject: [ntpwg] Harlan as Hero
> 
> Guys,
> 
> Harlan managed to bash the XML document to RFC. I made a few 
> very minor changes in the XML (organization and broken 
> reference). It still needs a list of figures, but everything 
> else looks clean and shiny.
> 
> The documents are queued for overnight transmission to the 
> web. The links on the NTP project page are correct as well.
> 
> What's next?
> 
> Dave

---

From: sla at ucolick.org (Steve Allen)
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:30:30 -0700

>             note that.

Section 4, 1st paragraph

The following text does not direct the reader to the definitive
references:

	The Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) timescale represents mean
	solar time as disseminated by national standards laboratories.

A better text would be

	The Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) timescale is defined by
	ITU-R TF.460.  Under the auspices of the Metre Convention of
	1865, in 1975 the CGPM strongly endorsed the use of UTC as the
	basis for civil time.

This implies adding these to the section of Informative References

International Telecommunications Union,
"Standard-frequency and time-signal emissions",
ITU-R TF.460,
http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-TF.460/en

General Conference on Weights and Measures,
Resolution 5 of the 15th CGPM,
Comptes Rendus de la 15e CGPM, 1976
http://www1.bipm.org/jsp/en/ViewCGPMResolution.jsp?CGPM=15&RES=5

--
Steve Allen                 <sla at ucolick.org>                WGS-84 (GPS)
UCO/Lick Observatory        Natural Sciences II, Room 165    Lat  +36.99845
University of California    Voice: +1 831 459 3046           Lng -122.06025
Santa Cruz, CA 95064        http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/     Hgt +250 m

---

From: tglassey at earthlink.net (todd glassey)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:06:52 -0700

Steve
I would also add something about what BIPM is and why it came about. Then 
also we could add a couple of sentences on UTC's date of creation and 
history.

Todd

---

From: sla at ucolick.org (Steve Allen)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:13:57 -0700

> also we could add a couple of sentences on UTC's date of creation and

I inferred the sentence to be explaining what UTC is and why NTP
specifies it.  As such I took the minimalist approach to clarify those
two points.  With those two points clarified all other mention of UTC
becomes unobjectionable.  I did not want to specify anything beyond
those two points lest I lead down a path which is outside the scope of
the NTP document.

---

From: tglassey at earthlink.net (todd glassey)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:38:16 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Allen" <sla at ucolick.org>
To: <ntpwg at ntp.isc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Comments on draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-proto-05

> specifies it.

Inferrances are something that dont belong in standards processes since they 
are interpreted differently and open a design to confusion.

> As such I took the minimalist approach to clarify those
> two points.

Again - its a standards process...

> With those two points clarified all other mention of UTC
> becomes unobjectionable.

Actually I would like to see some form of Jurisdicitional indicator of who's 
UTC the NTP service is  claiming to track or source.

> I did not want to specify anything beyond

The Jurisdiction of the Source of Time is something that is key to NTP and 
has not been addressed yet. The time data from a NTP source needs to be 
accreddited in the data itself. This is an issue for audit of the past use 
of that data but its really important to the bigger pix as it were IMHO.

---

From: tglassey at earthlink.net (todd glassey)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:45:31 -0700

I couldn't get IE to display the XML version as it sits now either.

T.

---

From: stenn at ntp.isc.org (Harlan Stenn)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 07:41:42 +0000

> I couldn't get IE to display the XML version as it sits now either.

The URL is a link to the xml so you can download it and feed it to the
xml2rfc thingy.

I think there is a .txt file alongside the .xml file that is a formatted
version.

H