Subject: [ntpwg] [Fwd: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-ntp-autokey]

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:47:27 -0400

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-ntp-autokey
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked],[email-masked], 
[email-masked]

Discuss:

   The Gen-ART Review by Joel Halpern on 5-June-2009 has lead to some
   discussion with the authors.  Not all of the issues have been
   resolved, but it is clear that some changes to the document are
   needed.  The following issues are still unresolved.

   The usage within Autokey of the extension field need description early
   in the document.  Paragraph 3 of Section 10 reserves seven values (1-7)
   Autokey. The "Field Type" field performs two roles: identification as
   an Autokey extension and defining the type within Autokey.

   Section 11.1 includes a 16 bit Digest / Signature NID.  There is no
   description of how this is used.

   The wording on hierarchy in section 5, paragraph 3 is the opposite of
   what is shown in the figure.  (The figure matches expectations, where
   a client of one group operates as the TH of a group operating at a
   lower stratum.)

   In Section 10, the paragraph that begins "[T]he extension field parser
   initializes a pointer..." is incorrect.  The "length" by which the
   pointer is increment is the length in the extension header, not the
   length computed by subtracting the NTP header from the packet length.

   In figure 5, it would help the reader if the groups and hosts had
   different names.  (Even just calling the groups Alice-Group and
   Carol-Group would help.)

   In section 5, in the description of "[t]he steps in hiking the
   certificate trails...", in step 1, in the second sentence, please add
   language to make it clear that the server is "exchanging host names
   and negotiating..." with is the server from whom it is getting
   information.

   Section 8 should be moved earlier in the document.  Early parts of the
   document assume an understanding of properties of the system which
   have not been described yet.

   Section 11.6 (Security Considerations) is supposed to be a top-level
   section.

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

---

From: Danny Mayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:17:12 -0400

Brian,

When you say that the following issues are still unresolved, do you just
mean that the document still needs to be updated or do you mean that
there is further discussion needed, or something else?

Danny

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:30:30 -0400

Danny,
      These comments come from an IESG member, so we need to address 
them in some way.  That can either be via document changes where needed 
or discussions (e.g., e-mail) with the AD or reviewer who raised the issue.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Danny Mayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:56:34 -0400

Brian Haberman wrote:
> Danny,
>      These comments come from an IESG member, so we need to address them
> in some way.  That can either be via document changes where needed or
> discussions (e.g., e-mail) with the AD or reviewer who raised the issue.
> 

I did respond to them on the mailing list and I believe that Dave
exchanged email with Joel and updated the XML document as a result.

Danny

---

From: David Mills <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:01:43 +0000

Danny & Co.,

I've receoved comments from four reviewers and responded to the first 
three and about to respond to the fourth. I've provided two marked up 
drafts, the latest of which is on the NTP project page in XML. However, 
I can't produce the text version due to an unavailable ID that must be 
somewhere else, as it is here.

Dave

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:22:28 -0400

Dave,
      Your version 7 of the autokey spec has been rendered in IETF draft 
format and is available at:

http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~bkhabs/draft-ietf-ntp-autokey-06.txt

The corresponding XML (with slight modifications) is also available

http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~bkhabs/draft-ietf-ntp-autokey-06.xml

Regards,
Brian