NTP WG Meeting Minutes 1740-1950, Monday, December 3, 2007 The meeting was chaired by Karen O'Donoghue and Brian Haberman. Malcolm Airst took the minutes and Yaakov Stein acted as Jabber scribe. The proposed agenda included: Administrivia Chairs NTPv4 Protocol Specification Martin * draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-proto-08.txt - NTP Autokey Specification Haberman * draft-ietf-ntp-autokey-00.txt - NTPv4 MIB Elliott * draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-mib-02.txt - NTP server option for DHCPv6 Lourdelet * draft-gayraud-dhcpv6-ntp-opt-00.txt - TICTOC/Future efforts NTPv4 Protocol Specification (Jim Martin) Document: draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-proto-08.txt. Slides: Jim has produced another revision of this document in response to Chicago and Prague discussions. The following significant changes were made: * References to private networks for alternative algorithms were removed. * The REFID was placed under IANA management. Verified that REFID text does address both v4 and v6. * Text is still lacking that clearly defines which bit in the packet the timestamp represents. The WG needs to decide on the precise approach. Three options were discussed: a) The timing bit be the first bit of the IP packet or b) the timing bit be located at the beginning of NTP payload or c) Use the start of the Ethernet frame. Discussion: The timestamp should reference the start of the NTP header. Yaakov Stein, Stewart Bryant, and Greg Dowd to work offline and submit proposed text. * KOD timestamp to be defined in draft-09 using the text proposed by Danny Meyer on the mailing list. * The WG should identify remaining issues between the NTP and Autokey drafts. Then draft -09 can be published and go through another Working Group Last Call. NTP Autokey Specification (Brian Haberman) Document: draft-ietf-ntp-autokey-00.txt. Slides: * WGLC began on 11-02-07 * Only one set of comments initially received (additional comments and suggestions by Greg Dowd and Dave Mills were missed in the meeting preparation and are not discussed here). o There was a proposal to remove the paragraph discussing NATs o There was also a comment to remove the sentence discussing the use of reverse DNS o Other minor comments were discussed and adjudicated * Next steps: Revise document based on comments. Further discussion needed on the draft. NTPv4 can't proceed without the Autokey document. NTPv4 MIB (Chris Elliott) Document: draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-mib-02.txt. Slides: * Minor updates made to document o Added optional statistics objects o Remaining work includes verifying compliance with latest XML MIB template and incorporating the latest comments. * Plan to revise document one final time and issue a working group last call. Chris indicated that this could be done within a week. NTP server option for DHCPv6 (Benoit Lourdelet, Richard Gayraud) Document: draft-gayraud-dhcpv6-ntp-opt-00.txt. Slides: * Network operators prefer to centrally configure IP services through DHCP. DHCPv6 options are added to offer NTPv4 client configuration. Two new options were added to DHCPv6: 1) Advertise NTP server locations and 2) Address public internet and private network requirements * Network operators would prefer to configure NTP parameters to fine tune NTP traffic vs. clock accuracy. Another concern is that a small NTP server become overloaded, causing the risk of a catastrophic NTP event. Existing DHCPv4 only uses the NTP server address. Additional configuration options are defined in the new draft. Suggestions for additional parameters are welcome. * Brian Haberman suggested that first, DHCPv6 should emulate DHCPv4 capability. A later revision of the document could then cover additional capabilities. There was a detailed discussion on which NTP parameters to use and if SNTP should also be used. * Should the parameters be reworked? Should Autokey be included via reference to ID? Brian Haberman's suggestion is to review comments for impact and then publish a revised document. The authors agreed. TICTOC/Future Efforts (Karen O'Donoghue) Karen felt that an open discussion in the NTP WG was needed in preparation for the TICTOC BOF planned for the next morning. There were some basic questions that should be addressed including: 1) Is there more work that needs to be done with NTP; 2) What is the best way to accomplish this work; and 3) Can the IETF sustain two timing related working groups in the IETF. There does appear to be more work that could and should be done standardizing NTP. However, there are not any clear compelling proposals on the table yet. Additionally, the NTP working group has struggled with finishing work based partly on a lack of resources and issues around clear design authority. The original charter covered NTPv4 and eventual work on NTPv5. Almost three years later weâ're still trying to get NTPv4 completed. NTPv4 is a moving target since most implementations are based on a changing code base. Karen stated that perhaps the next generation timing work does not belong in the NTP WG given the issues to date. In this case, however, where should any NTP follow on work (NTPv5?) reside? Greg suggested that the NTP charter should be updated when NTPv4 is completed. Many current NTP issues are not actual timing related, but rather NTP control issues. The initial focus of TICTOC would be on timing. Yaakov stated that IETF Management is concerned that there is not enough critical mass to support two WGs covering timing issues. On the positive side, if there's a single WG with two tracks, there would be synergy and collaborative review between the subgroups. Yaakov is concerned about NTP's future, specifically for TICTOC Use Case 2. Karen stated that in a perfect scenario NTP would be the timing protocol and all IETF efforts would focus on advancing that protocol; however, that is not the current reality in the IETF. No clear consensus was reached beyond the fact that the working group really needs to complete its current charter items and that there is concern in the IETF about the resources associated with two time related working groups. The meeting was adjourned.