Subject: [ntpwg] I-D Action: draft-dfranke-ntp-data-minimization-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 21:08:14 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Network Time Protocol of the IETF.

        Title           : NTP Client Data Minimization
        Authors         : Daniel Fox Franke
                          Aanchal Malhotra
	Filename        : draft-dfranke-ntp-data-minimization-02.txt
	Pages           : 5
	Date            : 2017-03-27

Abstract:
   This memo proposes backward-compatible updates to the Network Time
   Protocol to strip unnecessary identifying information from client
   requests and to improve resilience against blind spoofing of
   unauthenticated server responses.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dfranke-ntp-data-minimization/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dfranke-ntp-data-minimization-02
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dfranke-ntp-data-minimization-02

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-dfranke-ntp-data-minimization-02

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg

---

From: Daniel Franke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:18:38 -0400

This new revision changes MUSTs for client behavior to SHOULDs, while
adding an explicit requirement that servers MUST allow clients to
behave this way. It also clarifies the justification for keeping
zeroing the polling interval as a mere MAY.

I've retained the paragraph concerning randomization which Harlan
objects to, at least until he clarifies what his objections are. I've
also, at least for the time being, kept the recommended value for the
precision field as 0 rather than 32. We should probably resolve this
with a hum.
_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg