Subject: Re: [ntpwg] NTP WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ntp-dhcpv6-ntp-opt-03.txt

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:28:20 -0400

All,
      This LC ended over a month ago with no comments.  We cannot 
advance a document to the IESG if there is no support for it (silence is 
not consensus).  If you support (or object) to the advancement of this 
document we need to hear it, preferably on the mailing list but 
privately to the chairs is acceptable.

Regards,
Brian

Odonoghue, Karen F CIV NSWCDD, W23 wrote:
> All,
> 
> This message starts a 2-week NTP Working Group Last Call on advancing:
> 
>        Title     : Network Time Protocol (NTP) Server Option for DHCPv6
>        Author(s) : R. Gayraud and B. Lourdelet
>        Filename  : draft-ietf-ntp-dhcpv6-ntp-opt-03.txt
>        Pages     : 10
>        Date      : March 6, 2009
> 	
> as a Proposed Standard document.  Substantive comments and statements of support or opposition for advancing this document should be directed to the mailing list.  Editorial suggestions can be sent to the document editor.  This last call will end on May 20.
> 
> Regards,
> Brian & Karen
> NTP co-chairs
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ntpwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg

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

---

From: Danny Mayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:51:31 -0400

Sorry, but I've been too busy to review it. I will see if I can get some
time next week to go over it.

Danny

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

---

From: "Greg Dowd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:42:35 -0700

I support the advancement of this draft.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Brian Haberman
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:28 PM
To: Odonoghue, Karen F CIV NSWCDD, W23; NTP Working Group
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [TICTOC] [ntpwg] NTP WG Last
Call:draft-ietf-ntp-dhcpv6-ntp-opt-03.txt

All,

Regards,
Brian

Odonoghue, Karen F CIV NSWCDD, W23 wrote:
> as a Proposed Standard document.  Substantive comments and statements
of support or opposition for advancing this document should be directed
to the mailing list.  Editorial suggestions can be sent to the document
editor.  This last call will end on May 20.

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

---

From: Rob Neal <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:37:26 -0600 (MDT)

I support it as well. Go forward, please.

---

From: Todd Glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:43:15 -0700

>> I support the advancement of this draft.
I dont - the design of NTP is flawed from an evidence perspective and 
the point of this draft is to securely interface NTP to DHCP which 
serves the interests of only those members of this entity who support 
the continued advancement of NTP in its current vein - i.e. with code 
from the ISC and through the licensing problems which exist now because 
the IETF's copyrights are now the controlling ones on the NTP standard.

Sorry - I DO NOT support the advancement of this draft since it actually 
serves only to increase the value of proprietary code and not advance 
NTP. It also totally glosses over that NEA the Network Enablement.
>>>        Title     : Network Time Protocol (NTP) Server Option for
>>>       
>> DHCPv6
>>     
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.17/2242 - Release Date: 07/16/09 18:00:00
>
>

---

From: Harlan Stenn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:37:47 +0000

I believe the document should be accepted and advanced.

Todd, from the right perspective I can still find you to be pretty
amusing.

H

---

From: Todd Glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:56:38 -0700

> I believe the document should be accepted and advanced.
I dont...
> Todd, from the right perspective I can still find you to be pretty
Harlan thanks - any time you want your lawyers to talk to me you have my 
number and since the ISC's attorney doesnt return my calls so... My 
commentary stands - and that is that there is NO reason to add NTP 
services to DHCP and not add those to NEA as well unless it is your 
intention to cause damage to the NEA protocol's standards efforts. NEA 
and DHCP services can work together or exclusively of each other and as 
such its critical that NEA also have time services defined in it.

Todd Glassey

> Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.18/2243 - Release Date: 07/17/09 06:08:00
>
>

---

From: Danny Mayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:52:27 -0400

Sorry for the delay. I have two issues which I thought had been agreed upon:

Major:
1) That this draft should obsolete RFC 4075 and the "SNTP" option should
be withdrawn and that this will replace it. The rationale for this is
that this draft contains everything that the "SNTP" option contains and
then some so there is no need for both options. There are no
distinguishing characteristics that a client would be required to use an
SNTP server instead of an NTP server and vice versa. From the client's
point of view they are interchangeable.

Minor:
2) The term "NTP Server" can be used interchangably with "SNTP Server"
and NTP Client with SNTP Client.  For example, in Section 3 the first
paragraph should be replaced with:

This option serves as a container for all the information related to one
NTP server or SNTP server.  This option can appear multiple times in a
DHCPv6 message. Each instance of this option is to be considered by the
NTP client or SNTP client as a server to include in its configuration.

These are the only two issues that I have with the document as it now
stands. If these can be addressed then we should be able to move the
document forward.

Danny

---

From: Danny Mayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:04:30 -0400

> the IETF's copyrights are now the controlling ones on the NTP standard.

This draft has nothing to do with NTP itself. This draft is about the
DHCPV6 server providing a list of possible NTP servers for the client to
use. The client has the option of using the list as is, adding it to
it's own list or totally ignoring the list and not using any of them.
The DHCPV6 server will have a list provisioned by an administrator.
Whether the list is chosen well or badly has nothing to do with the
protocol draft. If you find that NTP is flawed then you have access to
the source code to fix it and distribute your own version but it has
nothing to do with a DHCP protocol proposal.

None of this has anything to do with ISC. NTP is copyrighted by the
University of Delaware. The IETF owns the protocol even though it was
developed at the University of Delaware by David Mills. You are free to
accept, reject or just ignore IETF standards as they have no policing
function.

> NTP. It also totally glosses over that NEA the Network Enablement.

It might (or not) increase the value of your own proprietary code but
the NTP protocol and the reference implementation is not proprietary and
you can do whatever you want with the code. I have no idea what NEA is
or the Network Enablement nor to I understand what this has to do with
this draft proposal.

Danny

---

From: Danny Mayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:11:11 -0400

> such its critical that NEA also have time services defined in it.

This is not a legal question so I have no idea why you are bringing it
up. If the DHCP WG wants to add NTP provisioning to DHCP services they
have every right to do so. The NTP working group was only asked to lend
its expertise to look at the proposal and make recommendations on any
changes that might be needed. If NEA (whoever they are) wants to do the
same they are free to do so. The NTP Working Group has no say on the
matter except to review the proposal and make recommendations if asked.
You are making it sound like DHCP is somehow excluding NEA from doing
the same thing which it is not.

Danny