Minutes interim-2018-ntp-02: Thu 16:00
Network Time Protocol
||Minutes interim-2018-ntp-02: Thu 16:00
# NTP Virtual Interim Meeting
Time: Oct 18, 2018 4:00 PM UTC
Participants: Karen O'Donoghue, Denis Reilly, Kristof Teichel, Rich Salz,
Marcus Dansarie, Richard Welty, Tal Mizrahi, Steve S, J. I. Alvarez-Hamelin,
Sam Weiler, Miroslav Lichvar, Danny Mayer, Martin Langer, Erich Pleny
Administrative and Agenda Bashing
- Karen presents the Note Well
- No agenda bashing
- Meeting will be recorded. No objections.
TICTOC quick document status
- Draft YANG Data Model for IEEE 1588-2008 has been through IETF LC.
- The document triggered concerns at the IESG because it relies on
body's documents which are not accessible openly.
- A second IETF LC will be issued. Reviewers will get access to the
document for the purpose of performing a review.
- The Enterprise Profile for the PTP will proceed soon. As with the YANG data
it requires access to the IEEE 1588 document for the purpose of review.
NTP quick document status (Karen)
- MAC for NTP
- Minor changes requested by the INT Area director
- Is currently in the IETF LC
- Control Messages is ready for submission to the IESG
Guidelines for Defining Packet Timestamps (Tal)
- At IETF meeting 102 an issue about timestamp formats that addresses leap
raised and afterwords discussed in the mailing list.
- The authors believe that this is a very interesting topic but that it is not
the scope of this document. The draft is as it is well scoped and has two well
1. Recommend timestamp formats
2. Guidelines for defining packet timestamps
- Open issue: how to address leap seconds a new timestamp format that deals
seconds (and leap second smears). This should be a new draft. Tal is willing
to work on such a document together with anybody who is willing to volunteer.
- Tal believes the draft is ready for WGLC
- This document will go to WGLC
- Anybody willing to work on a new timestamp format shall contact Tal.
Next steps for Network Time Protocol Best Current Practices
- Karen: this document is currently on IETF last call
- Denis gives a report about the IETF LC comments
- Working to the comments together with Dieter, Harlan and Karen. They
really controversial and the draft will be changed accordingly
- Comments are tracked in a file accessible in the GitHub repository.
provide the address.
- Few comments addresses the requirement language. This will be worked
out with Karen. - BCP 38.
- Question is should the document mention BCP 38?
- Danny and Denis: yes
- Denis will ask the list who is applying BCP 38
- Leap smearing.
- Some reviewer emphasize that leap smearing should not be used
The authors believe that the draft should point out that leap
smearing currently is applied at some places.
- The authors emphasize that it should only be applied within
- The language shall be elaborated in order to make clear where
can be applied. A MUST NOT is to strong.
- Danny: leap smearing is quite controversial. A server has to signal if
- Denis: currently there is no standardized way to advertise that
- Danny: Up to now there are only some draft about the signaling
- Rich: is the recommendation: don't smear on the public internet
that it is being done. Recommend to say nothing about the private
- Denis: the language says that smearing can be used within a local
environment - Rich: that is fine - Denis: the document should
acknowledge that smearing happens - Denis: all comments shall be
answered on the mailing list and GitHub by next Friday
- Document's intended status
- Karen: didn't pay must intention when doing the shepherd of how this going
informational or a BCP. It should be a BCP and the audience should be
specified clearly. In particular that it addresses operators.
- Next steps for the draft
- Karen: update the draft and hopefully get consensus from the IESG
that we had
addressed all comments from the IETF LC. It then goes to IESG ballot
- Karen will speak to an operator about BCP 38
- Karen the author have to update the documents by the end of next week.
NTS for NTP
- Karen: there has no interoperability testing after the last interim
- Status of the draft (Dieter)
- Version -13 still is current. No update since the last interim
- two editorial updates on the Github version
- Daniel couldn't provide the updates he intends to do on the record formats
- Marcus: Neta send a comments regarding the NTS draft
- Kristof: I've answered to this comment
- Karen: an update of the draft prior to Monday would be great
Planning for NTS interoperability testing
- Karen: NTS efforts during the last two hackathon. Both have been very
productive. - Karen: didn't plan to have NTS at the next hackathon in Bangkok.
- Karen: would like to have an interoperability test in Prag. If the documents
to WGLC by the end of this year we will have more real implementation by
- Martin: intends to update his implementation to address version -13. Suppose
have a finished implementation of the current draft by March.
- Richard: is testing with the ntpd based implementation against Martin's
- Karen: the document went through a YANG doctor review and was updated
afterwards. - Karen will contact the authors to double check if the document is
ready for WGLC. - No comments
- Karen: The leap smear refid was removed from the draft
It is no submitted as individual submission in the draft
- Aanchal mentioned that she didn't spoke with Harlan about these documents
- Karen: ask Aanchal to review the review the current version of draft
- Karen: WGLC decision in Bangkok
NTP Data Minimization
- Karen: This was on WGLC and it was very quiet
- Karen: are there any comments about the next steps for this document
- Rich: it is ok if there is no consensus about a draft
- Marcus: support way forward
- Karen: will go to the IESG
NTP Correction Field
- Miroslav: New version has been submitted. It contains two changes.
- The EF format is no complaint to PTP's correction field (timestamps
in ns) - Fields for root delay and root dispersion are removed
- Karen: do you think there is consensus for a call of adoption. The status of
- Miroslav: would like to hear Tal's opinion.
- Karen: if Tal and you are pleased with the document please ask (Karen and
for a call for adoption
NTP short extension field
- Miroslav: Motivation to have a short EF for root dispersion and root delay.
May be used for other purposes.
- Miroslav specify a new packet format in accordance with 7822. Important,
no ambiguity in parsing of the EF. It should therefore don't break
implementations which implemented RFC 7822.
- Miroslav: would like to know if other people find this interesti
- Karen: any feedback on this draft
- Miroslav: to make clear, this is a alternative approach to Harlan proposal
- Danny: it is an update to 7822. Harlan's draft also would be an update to
although it makes other things as well.
- Karen: Correct, Harlan EF proposal was not approved for adoption.
- Karen: we should see this draft as an update of 7822.
- Karen: Action for this document is to be discussed on the mailing list
Harlan's individual submissions
- draft-stenn-ntp-extension-field: Update -07. There is no consensus on.
Any comment to this document. No.
- draft-stenn-extended-information-EF: Any comments: OK
- I-Do draft: No comments.
- Karen: ask anyone to read these documents and post comments on the list.
- Karen: Dieter and I have to reach out Harlan to clarify how to proceed.
- Karen: ask peopled to drop a note who is attending the meeting
- Interoperation event at IETF 104 planned.
- An virtual interoperability even in January would possibly nice for
of IETF 104. Anybody interested to participate and help, please contact Dieter
- Upcoming meeting:
- IETF 103 in early November
- Interim in mid December
- Interim in late January
- Sam objects to use slideware that is only visible when using the proprietary
Zoom binary. In the future, please make slideware available in more open and
less transient formats (e.g. as PDFs).