Skip to main content

UDP Checksum Complement in the Network Time Protocol (NTP)
draft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer-07

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2016-03-23
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2016-03-21
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2016-03-17
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2016-03-14
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2016-03-11
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2016-03-11
07 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2016-03-11
07 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2016-03-10
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2016-03-10
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2016-03-10
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2016-03-10
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Sandra Murphy.
2016-03-10
07 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2016-03-10
07 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2016-03-10
07 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2016-03-10
07 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2016-03-10
07 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2016-03-10
07 Brian Haberman Ballot approval text was generated
2016-03-10
07 Brian Haberman Ballot writeup was changed
2016-03-10
07 Tal Mizrahi New version available: draft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer-07.txt
2016-03-08
06 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Tim Wicinski.
2016-03-07
06 Tal Mizrahi IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2016-03-07
06 Tal Mizrahi New version available: draft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer-06.txt
2016-03-03
05 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2016-03-03
05 Michelle Cotton IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2016-03-03
05 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2016-03-02
05 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2016-03-02
05 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2016-03-02
05 Karen O'Donoghue
This is the publication request and document shepherd write up for:

UDP Checksum Complement in the Network Time Protocol (NTP)
draft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer-03.txt

Prepared by: Karen O’Donoghue, …
This is the publication request and document shepherd write up for:

UDP Checksum Complement in the Network Time Protocol (NTP)
draft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer-03.txt

Prepared by: Karen O’Donoghue, 3 Feb 2016

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

This document is being requested for publication as an Experimental RFC as properly indicated on the top of the document. This document results in no changes to the NTP protocol.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

The Network Time Protocol (NTP) allows clients to synchronize to a time server using timestamped protocol messages. To facilitate accurate timestamping, some implementations use hardware-based timestamping engines that integrate the accurate transmission time into every outgoing NTP packet during transmission. Since these packets are transported over UDP, the UDP checksum field is then updated to reflect this modification. This document proposes an extension field that includes a 2-octet Checksum Complement, allowing timestamping engines to reflect the checksum modification in the last 2 octets of the packet rather than in the UDP checksum field.

Working Group Summary:

The document has clear working group consensus for publication, and has been reviewed by several WG participants since its initial adoption as a working group item. This document is similar to the “UDP Checksum Complement in OWAMP and TWAMP” (draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-05.txt) in the IPPM working group. The hardware aspects of the functionality described in this draft were implmented by Marvell.

Document Quality:

This document has been reviewed and revised several times during its development. There were no specific external expert reviews conducted.

Personnel:

Karen O'Donoghue is acting as the Document Shepherd.  Brian Haberman is the Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The document shepherd has followed the working group process and reviewed the final document and feels this document is ready for IESG review.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The document shepherd does not have any concerns about the reviews that were performed.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

This document does not require any special reviews beyond those planned during the IESG review process.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

The Document Shepherd is comfortable with this document as a simple definition of an experimental NTP extension header to support a checksum complement. The documents represent the consensus of the working group.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

The authors have confirmed that they have dealt with all appropriate IPR disclosures.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

There is one IPR disclosure made that is relevant to this document. This disclosure is in line with IETF policy for IPR used in IETF documents.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2369/

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The document represents strong WG consensus.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.

There have been no threats of anyone appealing the documents.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

The ID nits tool was run with the following results:
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

The warning are both related to the fact the document was last updated in Oct 2015. The comment refers to a missing reference that will be fixed in the next update of the document ([NTP] → [NTPv4])

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

There are no formal review criteria for this document.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

All references are tagged as normative or informative.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are completed.

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

There are no downward normative references.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

This document does not change the status of any existing RFC.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

There are no new IANA considerations contained in this document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

There are no new IANA considerations contained in this document.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

There are no formal language sections in this document.
2016-03-02
05 Paul Kyzivat Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat.
2016-03-02
05 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot comment]
Thanks for synchronizing this with the IPPM checksum trailer draft!
2016-03-02
05 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2016-03-02
05 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benoit Claise has been changed to No Objection from No Record
2016-03-01
05 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2016-03-01
05 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2016-03-01
05 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2016-03-01
05 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
Question:

    As described in Section 1, an intermediate entity that updates the
    timestamp in the NTP packet can use …
[Ballot comment]
Question:

    As described in Section 1, an intermediate entity that updates the
    timestamp in the NTP packet can use the Checksum Complement in
    order to maintain the correctness of the UDP checksum field.

I'm wondering about the "can use" here.
What is the alternative? Correct the UDP checksum field, which is incompatible with your use case (hardware timestamping)?
Or use the zero checksum (not possible for IPv6)?

Isn't more like this?
    As described in Section 1, an intermediate entity that updates the
    timestamp with hardware timestamping in the NTP packet MUST use
    the Checksum Complement in order to maintain the correctness of the
    UDP checksum field.

And, for the record, I agree with Barry's questions.
2016-03-01
05 Benoît Claise Ballot comment text updated for Benoit Claise
2016-03-01
05 Brian Haberman IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2016-03-01
05 Brian Haberman Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-03-01
05 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2016-03-01
05 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2016-03-01
05 Tal Mizrahi IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2016-03-01
05 Tal Mizrahi New version available: draft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer-05.txt
2016-03-01
04 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2016-02-29
04 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2016-02-29
04 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2016-02-29
04 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
-- Section 3.2 --

    The extension field includes 22 octets of padding. This field
    SHOULD be set to 0, …
[Ballot comment]
-- Section 3.2 --

    The extension field includes 22 octets of padding. This field
    SHOULD be set to 0, and SHOULD be ignored by the recipient.

Why are these "SHOULD"?  Under what conditions might a sender not set them to zero?  Under what conditions might a recipient not ignore it, and what might it do if it doesn't ignore it?
2016-02-29
04 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2016-02-29
04 Brian Haberman Ballot has been issued
2016-02-29
04 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2016-02-29
04 Brian Haberman Created "Approve" ballot
2016-02-29
04 Brian Haberman Ballot writeup was changed
2016-02-25
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Paul Kyzivat
2016-02-25
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Paul Kyzivat
2016-02-23
04 Paul Kyzivat Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat.
2016-02-22
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Paul Kyzivat
2016-02-22
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Paul Kyzivat
2016-02-21
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Wicinski
2016-02-21
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Wicinski
2016-02-18
04 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2016-02-18
04 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer-04.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA …
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer-04.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete.

In the NTP Extension Field Types subregistry in the Network Time Protocol (NTP) Parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ntp-parameters/

a new extension field type will be registered as follows:

Field Type: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Meaning: Checksum Complement
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. 


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN
2016-02-17
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy
2016-02-17
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy
2016-02-16
04 Brian Haberman Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-03-03
2016-02-16
04 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2016-02-16
04 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: brian@innovationslab.net, "Karen O'Donoghue" , odonoghue@isoc.org, ntpwg@lists.ntp.org, draft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer@ietf.org, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: brian@innovationslab.net, "Karen O'Donoghue" , odonoghue@isoc.org, ntpwg@lists.ntp.org, draft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer@ietf.org, ntp-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (UDP Checksum Complement in the Network Time Protocol (NTP)) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Network Time Protocol WG (ntp)
to consider the following document:
- 'UDP Checksum Complement in the Network Time Protocol (NTP)'
  as Experimental 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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-03-01. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The Network Time Protocol (NTP) allows clients to synchronize to a
  time server using timestamped protocol messages. To facilitate
  accurate timestamping, some implementations use hardware-based
  timestamping engines that integrate the accurate transmission time
  into every outgoing NTP packet during transmission. Since these
  packets are transported over UDP, the UDP checksum field is then
  updated to reflect this modification. This document proposes an
  extension field that includes a 2-octet Checksum Complement, allowing
  timestamping engines to reflect the checksum modification in the last
  2 octets of the packet rather than in the UDP checksum field. The
  behavior defined in this document is interoperable with existing NTP
  implementations.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer/ballot/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2369/



2016-02-16
04 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2016-02-16
04 Amy Vezza Last call announcement was changed
2016-02-15
04 Brian Haberman Last call was requested
2016-02-15
04 Brian Haberman Last call announcement was generated
2016-02-15
04 Brian Haberman Ballot approval text was generated
2016-02-15
04 Brian Haberman Ballot writeup was generated
2016-02-15
04 Brian Haberman IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2016-02-15
04 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2016-02-15
04 Tal Mizrahi New version available: draft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer-04.txt
2016-02-10
03 Brian Haberman IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2016-02-03
03 Brian Haberman IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2016-02-03
03 Karen O'Donoghue
This is the publication request and document shepherd write up for:

UDP Checksum Complement in the Network Time Protocol (NTP)
draft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer-03.txtdraft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer

Prepared by: Karen O’Donoghue, …
This is the publication request and document shepherd write up for:

UDP Checksum Complement in the Network Time Protocol (NTP)
draft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer-03.txtdraft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer

Prepared by: Karen O’Donoghue, 3 Feb 2016

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

This document is being requested for publication as an Experimental RFC as properly indicated on the top of the document. This document results in no changes to the NTP protocol.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

The Network Time Protocol (NTP) allows clients to synchronize to a time server using timestamped protocol messages. To facilitate accurate timestamping, some implementations use hardware-based timestamping engines that integrate the accurate transmission time into every outgoing NTP packet during transmission. Since these packets are transported over UDP, the UDP checksum field is then updated to reflect this modification. This document proposes an extension field that includes a 2-octet Checksum Complement, allowing timestamping engines to reflect the checksum modification in the last 2 octets of the packet rather than in the UDP checksum field.

Working Group Summary:

The document has clear working group consensus for publication, and has been reviewed by several WG participants since its initial adoption as a working group item. This document is similar to the “UDP Checksum Complement in OWAMP and TWAMP” (draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-05.txt) in the IPPM working group. The hardware aspects of the functionality described in this draft were implmented by Marvell.

Document Quality:

This document has been reviewed and revised several times during its development. There were no specific external expert reviews conducted.

Personnel:

Karen O'Donoghue is acting as the Document Shepherd.  Brian Haberman is the Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The document shepherd has followed the working group process and reviewed the final document and feels this document is ready for IESG review.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The document shepherd does not have any concerns about the reviews that were performed.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

This document does not require any special reviews beyond those planned during the IESG review process.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

The Document Shepherd is comfortable with this document as a simple definition of an experimental NTP extension header to support a checksum complement. The documents represent the consensus of the working group.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

The authors have confirmed that they have dealt with all appropriate IPR disclosures.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

There is one IPR disclosure made that is relevant to this document. This disclosure is in line with IETF policy for IPR used in IETF documents.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2369/

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The document represents strong WG consensus.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.

There have been no threats of anyone appealing the documents.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

The ID nits tool was run with the following results:
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

The warning are both related to the fact the document was last updated in Oct 2015. The comment refers to a missing reference that will be fixed in the next update of the document ([NTP] → [NTPv4])

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

There are no formal review criteria for this document.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

All references are tagged as normative or informative.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are completed.

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

There are no downward normative references.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

This document does not change the status of any existing RFC.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

There are no new IANA considerations contained in this document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

There are no new IANA considerations contained in this document.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

There are no formal language sections in this document.
2016-02-03
03 Karen O'Donoghue
This is the publication request and document shepherd write up for:

UDP Checksum Complement in the Network Time Protocol (NTP)
draft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer-03.txtdraft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer

Prepared by: Karen O’Donoghue, …
This is the publication request and document shepherd write up for:

UDP Checksum Complement in the Network Time Protocol (NTP)
draft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer-03.txtdraft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer

Prepared by: Karen O’Donoghue, 3 Feb 2016

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

This document is being requested for publication as an Experimental RFC as properly indicated on the top of the document. This document results in no changes to the NTP protocol.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

The Network Time Protocol (NTP) allows clients to synchronize to a time server using timestamped protocol messages. To facilitate accurate timestamping, some implementations use hardware-based timestamping engines that integrate the accurate transmission time into every outgoing NTP packet during transmission. Since these packets are transported over UDP, the UDP checksum field is then updated to reflect this modification. This document proposes an extension field that includes a 2-octet Checksum Complement, allowing timestamping engines to reflect the checksum modification in the last 2 octets of the packet rather than in the UDP checksum field.

Working Group Summary:

The document has clear working group consensus for publication, and has been reviewed by several WG participants since its initial adoption as a working group item. This document is similar to the “UDP Checksum Complement in OWAMP and TWAMP” (draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-05.txt) in the IPPM working group.

Document Quality:

This document has been reviewed and revised several times during its development. There were no specific external expert reviews conducted.

Personnel:

Karen O'Donoghue is acting as the Document Shepherd.  Brian Haberman is the Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The document shepherd has followed the working group process and reviewed the final document and feels this document is ready for IESG review.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The document shepherd does not have any concerns about the reviews that were performed.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

This document does not require any special reviews beyond those planned during the IESG review process.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

The Document Shepherd is comfortable with this document as a simple definition of an experimental NTP extension header to support a checksum complement. The documents represent the consensus of the working group.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

The authors have confirmed that they have dealt with all appropriate IPR disclosures.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

There is one IPR disclosure made that is relevant to this document. This disclosure is in line with IETF policy for IPR used in IETF documents.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2369/

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The document represents strong WG consensus.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.

There have been no threats of anyone appealing the documents.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

The ID nits tool was run with the following results:
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

The warning are both related to the fact the document was last updated in Oct 2015. The comment refers to a missing reference that will be fixed in the next update of the document ([NTP] → [NTPv4])

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

There are no formal review criteria for this document.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

All references are tagged as normative or informative.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are completed.

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

There are no downward normative references.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

This document does not change the status of any existing RFC.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

There are no new IANA considerations contained in this document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

There are no new IANA considerations contained in this document.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

There are no formal language sections in this document.

2016-02-03
03 Karen O'Donoghue Responsible AD changed to Brian Haberman
2016-02-03
03 Karen O'Donoghue IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2016-02-03
03 Karen O'Donoghue IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2016-02-03
03 Karen O'Donoghue IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2016-02-03
03 Karen O'Donoghue Changed document writeup
2016-02-03
03 Karen O'Donoghue Changed document writeup
2015-10-27
03 Karen O'Donoghue Intended Status changed to Experimental from None
2015-10-27
03 Karen O'Donoghue Notification list changed to "Karen O'Donoghue" <odonoghue@isoc.org>
2015-10-27
03 Karen O'Donoghue Document shepherd changed to Karen O'Donoghue
2015-10-06
03 Tal Mizrahi New version available: draft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer-03.txt
2015-07-21
02 Tal Mizrahi New version available: draft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer-02.txt
2015-01-15
01 Tal Mizrahi New version available: draft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer-01.txt
2014-07-20
00 Tal Mizrahi New version available: draft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer-00.txt