Subject: [Ntp] [NTP] WGLC for draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp (Requirements Language / NTP Pools)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 08:50:42 +0200

Hi all,

thanks to Yuanlong, Paul and Greg for their feedback.
In response to Paul's feedback:

1./4.) (Covers Yuanlong's feedback as well):
 I second the notion that we should adapt as much of the normative 
language in the document as possible into requirements language as per RFC 
2119.

3.)
I like the current name "cookie placeholder" over the suggestion "cookie 
request", simply because the former is more descriptive with regard to the 
same-length notion.
I do, however, not have a strong opinion on this.

5.) (Also goes to an issue raised implicitly by Harlan & Dave)
Concerning the NTP pools passage, I think there is something to the raised 
concerns, but I would approach the issue via the phrasing of the 
paragraph.
I suggest instead of simply saying "pool operators" or "pools" (which does 
silently imply ALL of them). we move to saying "some pool operators / 
pools", since the problem persists even if it does not concern all 
instances.
My text suggestion is:

        "[...] A more important matter, however, is that not all pool 
operators have procedures for establishing and maintaining trust in their 
members. 
        Pools in existence as of 2017 are often volunteer-run, some of 
them with minimal requirements for admission and/or with no organized 
effort to monitor pool servers for misbehavior. [...]"

I think this text does the same thing for the conclusion (in general, 
using pools with NTS is a bad idea), but hopefully more people will view 
it as factually correct.

Best regards

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