Minutes interim-2020-ntp-02: Thu 16:00
|Meeting Minutes||Network Time Protocols (ntp) WG|
|Title||Minutes interim-2020-ntp-02: Thu 16:00|
|Other versions||plain text|
=============================== NTP Virtual Interim February 27th, 2020 16:00 UCT Meeting Minutes =============================== Chairs: Karen O'Donoghue, Dieter Sibold Minutes: Tal Mizrahi Participants: ============= Karen O'Donoghue Dieter Sibold Tal Mizrahi Denis Reilly Danny Mayer Fireball Steve Marcus Dansarie Martin Langer Ragnar Sunblad Watson Ladd Rich Salz Introduction ============ - Karen: we are going to record the meeting. Any comments? - No comments. - Karen: the IETF note well applies. - The agenda was presented. Packet Timestamp Draft Status ============================= Tal: the IETF last call is over. There were a few comments from the Gen-ART reviewer, and we updated the draft based on theses comments. Nothing major. The draft is currently under IESG evaluation, and is scheduled to be discussed in the telechat on the 12th of March. Karen: there was some discussion in the last few days. Tal: right, there were two comments, both related to the control field section. We can address them with minor changes to the control field section. Karen: is it going to be a technical change that require to notify the IESG? Tal: I believe they are minor changes. Karen: is there still a plan to pursue the additional document about the control fields? Tal: yes, Joachim is leading this effort, and we have recently discussed it, and it looks like there is motivation to pursue this draft in the near future. Karen: did Doug ask a question on the mailing list? Tal: yes, it was one of the two comments I mentioned. Doug noted that it would be worthwhile to mention the PTP correctionField. We can add a comment to the control field section, since the correctionField is not a timestamp, it is an additional field that is sent along with the timestamp. NTS Draft Status ================ Karen: IETF last call on NTS - do any of the authors want to summarize the status? Dieter: there were a couple of comments that we already implemented in the Github repository, and will be in the next version of the draft. A couple of comments from the Gen-ART reviewere have not been resolved yet. Marcus: the only additional issue is the issue from the Gen-ART reviewer. There was a comment that we were not leaving values for future versions, but we do not agree with that. Watson: I believe the question was about values for experimental use. Marcus: there are enough values for experimental use. Dieter: Marcus - can you please send a reply to the Gen-ART reviewer? Marcus: yes, I will do that. Karen: regarding the IANA values - the suggested text was posted, but I have not seen any comments from implementers. Dieter: it was added. Karen: I am not sure we will complete this before the IESG transition. Karen: any other discussion about NTS? Karen: once the IESG starts balloting it is much easier if all the issues are addressed before the telechat. Be proactive to respond to any comments - no need to ask the working group, unless it is a controversial issue. Roughtime Draft Status ====================== Karen: an update was published about a month ago. Watson: a number of suggestions will be implemented. Not sure when the Roughtime deployment will implement these changes. Just ignore the optional fields if they are not familiar. Karen: any other comments or questions? Chronos Draft Status ==================== Tal: the authors have been working on an updated version that will be posted in the next few days. The new version addresses the main comment that was received about the draft, which is that Chronos may compromise the precision compared to NTP. The updated version of the draft suggests a solution that improves the security without compromising the precision. Status of other drafts: ======================= Karen: Interleaved mode needs to go to the IESG. Karen: the YANG model draft still has some issues that need to be discussed. Karen: port randomization - the authors are not available to give an update. NTS Discussion ============== Watson: some concerns have been raised about NTS. Some middleboxes are filtering NTP packets based on length. Do we need another NTP port? Rich: a new NTP port will not help, since unknown UDP ports are denied by default. Watson: maybe we can ask NANOG. Danny: the same problem was when we started deploying EDNS0. There is no easy way to start deploying a new protocol. Karen: do you have any suggestions to a successful strategy? Danny: need to ask the people who were involved. Karen: NTP has been widely used, so this is a problem. Danny: the problem is that middleboxes will need to do deep packet inspection. Watson: some boxes do not go beyond the headers. Danny: legacy routers and devices will have a problem. Karen: I am interested to find the right way to help deploy NTS, find the right organizations and resources. People from ISPs and operators may be able to help. Danny: regardless of the port number, you still have a problem. Watson: you can get an organization to change the firewall. Danny: people try not to touch firewalls. Karen: I am not sure what will happen in the IETF in Vancouver, and what tools we can have to try to promote NTS. Dieter: can we pass the question to the OPS area? Karen: the question about the ports? Dieter: yes. Karen: yes, we can ask. Running it by the NANOG mailing list may be interesting. Rich: the IETF has good connection with an ISP (Jason Livingood). We can ask where we can talk about this. Karen: it is a real problem. I was talking to Judah Levine, and he is concerned about scaling in this context. Two potential NTS topcis for Vancouver: measurement and deployment. Watson: we are not seeing a lot of uptake for NTS so far. Karen: encouraging deployment is a general problem. Marcus: if any major OS vendor would adopt NTS that would go a long way. Steve: a lot of Linux distributions use NTP pool. Will not necessarily work with NTS. Danny: nothing in the pool prevents NTS. Just need changes to specify that NTS is needed. Karen: the way that NTP pool is used, it will not exactly work with NTS. Marcus: it would be possible for the NTP pool to use NTS, by assigning a specific member of the pool. Karen: we talked about this, but we haven't done the work to get it incorporated. Watson: I have some ideas I can send to the list. Karen: that would be great. Steve: maybe we can take it to the list. Karen: good idea. I do not see a major issue in the IESG process. It is timely to talk about deployment. AOB === Karen: any other business? Karen: there is a possibility that the IETF will hold a fully virtual meeting. It is currently not clear. Karen: thanks everyone for the hard work that got us to this point. Adjourned at 16:40 UTC.