Subject: [ntpwg] NTPv5 suggestions

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 11:49:17 -0800

Because of all of the pain on which timescale should be used, NTP should
also allow the transmission of a TZ Token identifier of some form in the
packet.

This is for forensic use more than anything but would be valuable in a
number of audit models for NTP.

It also makes sense that it should be able to message the client app
about what issues it needs to do to the time to make it proper for the
client's location. Those issues are outside of traditional
synchronization models but should be considered too herein.

todd

-- 
Todd S. Glassey
This is from my personal email account and any materials from this
account come with personal disclaimers.

Further I OPT OUT of any and all commercial emailings.
_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg

---

From: "Ulrich Windl" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:34:56 +0100

Hi!

if NTP ist using UTC as time "format", why have a timezone? I don't get it.

Regards,
Ulrich

>>> todd glassey <[email-masked]> schrieb am 22.01.2012 um 20:49 in

---

From: Brian Utterback <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:20:09 -0500

I was wondering the same thing. I would like to hear a use case.

But while we are on the subject, I think an extension that contains the 
epoch number would be handy at startup. I don't know if you would 
include it all the time or only when requested (client server is 
obvious, but what about peer and broadcast?). But it would solve the 
rollover problem without all the kludgy "set the earliest date we will 
accept" stuff.

On 01/23/12 02:34, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>>>> todd glassey<[email-masked]>  schrieb am 22.01.2012 um 20:49 in
> Nachricht<[email-masked]>:

-- 
blu

Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code will be a
violent psychopath who knows where you live. - Martin Golding
-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
Brian Utterback - Solaris RPE, Oracle Corporation.
Ph:603-262-3916, Em:[email-masked]

---

From: Warner Losh <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:11:01 -0600

> if NTP ist using UTC as time "format", why have a timezone? I don't get it.

Not so much timezone, but it would be useful for distinguishing when people are running "GPS" time servers, or TAI servers, or the new putative "TI" time that might happen if leap seconds are ever abolished.  Some crazy people are talking about running their servers on UT time.  A token would allow dissimilar servers to not accidentally freak when they communicate.

Warner

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:12:37 -0800

> Not so much timezone, but it would be useful for distinguishing when people are running "GPS" time servers, or TAI servers, or the new putative "TI" time that might happen if leap seconds are ever…

True - so the issue becomes how the policies of the time practice are
implemented. If there are policies like "We only want to take time from
TI type systems" then these would need some way of being integrated with
existing system models.

Also, there are other tools setting up time servers, and they (NEA and
DHCP) both need to be able to deal with those issues.

As I have said to several off you offlist - we are building a new
version of NTP which is totally policy-control centric with the wondrous
(and YES DAMNIT I MEAN THAT) time transfer practice and timely interrupt
processing models that NTP is based on. We call it Secure Time Protocol
or sec*tp for short.

SEC*TP takes NTP and breaks the auth token and policy controls out from
the daemon itself and places them into a proxy layer which handles them
and then passes the data into a NTP port type model.

Functionally our model does away with Autokey by creating a OOB
proxy/controller node which sets up the time-setting and time-tracking
event.

The structure of the NTP service is rock-solid because the event
certifying tokens are delivered to both the client and the intended
server(s) through an OOB SSL Tunnel based interface.  This is used to
setup a OTPW and ON-DEMAND TOKEN based time service model which is
really going to be hard to do anything nasty too.

Additionally the service works independently between PTP and NTP
transports and can create the proper tokens therein.

YES WE WILL RELEASE IT ONCE ITS DONE, but we filed for a patent on this,
and if the group wants to see this IP we are willing to disclose it here.

Todd

---

From: Harlan Stenn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:04:01 -0800

Todd wrote:
> ...
> YES WE WILL RELEASE IT ONCE ITS DONE, but we filed for a patent on
> this, and if the group wants to see this IP we are willing to disclose
> it here. 
> 
> Todd

I'd like to see the IP/patent applications.  If you'd please send the
info either here to the list or to me I'd appreciate it.

H

---

From: Danny Mayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 07:50:38 -0500

> info either here to the list or to me I'd appreciate it.

Do not send ANY IP or patent information to the working group. That is
inappropriate for any IETF working group. Furthermore no working group
within IETF can consider any IP or patent information except where the
claimant has formally notified the IETF through established procedures
of any claims on any protocol or process under active consideration by
the Working Group. Working Group cannot consider them, it's a legal
issue at that point and not a technical issue. The IETF can only issue
unencumbered RFC's.

Danny

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:21:47 -0800

> issue at that point and not a technical issue. The IETF can only issue

Danny who in  this statement formally do you represent and who is their
formal legal point of service?

Todd Glassey

---

From: Danny Mayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:53:54 -0500

> formal legal point of service?

Intellectual Property claims and procedures in the IETF are described
here: http://www.ietf.org/ipr/ along with the relevant RFC's.

Danny

---

From: Harlan Stenn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:22:07 -0800

> >> info either here to the list or to me I'd appreciate it.

Having read what Todd wrote below, I was speaking personally when I
wrote the above.  My intent was to a) express interest, and b)
informally request/invite Todd to follow thru on his offer.

That's about as far down this road as I plan to go.

H
--

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:17:55 -0800

>>>>> this, and if the group wants to see this IP we are willing to disclose

IPR with Use License guarentee now on file with the IPR group in the
Secretariates office Danny. I listed you as the provocateur therein only
I didnt have a tele number for you so I used the ISC. Fix it if you want.

Todd

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:00:33 -0800

> That's about as far down this road as I plan to go.

Ohhh. sorry my bad - I should have rephrased that. I am with lawyers a
lot these days so...

How this should sound is that there is a kicker on this license. You
have to renew it yearly and report the uses. Its there so we can track
the use and for commercial use there is a licensing fee as well. No pain
beyond that Harlan.

T.