►
From YouTube: IETF114-NTP-20220727-1400
Description
NTP meeting session at IETF114
2022/07/27 1400
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/114/proceedings/
A
A
It
is
10
o'clock,
so
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
get
started.
I
want
to
give
a
couple
people
some
reminders.
A
James,
I
see
you
remote.
Can
you
hear.
C
A
All
right
I'll
take
my
my
mask
off
for
this
and
try
to
speak
louder
anyway,
great
also
as
a
reminder
for
folks
in
the
room
and
remote,
there
is
a
way
to
join
the
queue,
so
just
be
sure
to
join
the
queue
and
we'll
go
back
and
forth,
based
on
the
queue
as
opposed
to
who's
physically
in
the
room.
A
A
Great,
thank
you.
So
the
note
well
applies
a
couple
other
things.
If
you
are
in
the
room,
the
ietf
is
requesting
that
everybody
wear
masks
unless
you're
speaking
at
a
microphone
and
if
you
get
close
enough,
sometimes
that
you
can
keep
the
masks
on.
Even
for
that,
the
I
think
that's
scribe,
then
you're
going
to
take
notes
right,
theater,
excellent.
A
There
is,
if
you
join
the
notepad,
that's
linked
off
of
data
tracker.
You
can
contribute
to
the
notes
as
we
go
along.
We
find
that
doing
this
online
helps
us
get
our
minutes
done
in
a
much
more
timely
manner.
A
I
know
that
I
personally
am
responsible
for
several
sets
of
late
minutes.
So
that
way
we
have
a
record
of
at
least
what
we
have
so
feel
free
to
contribute
to
the
minutes.
As
we
go,
the
oh,
the
114
meeting
tips.
I
forgot
that
we
added
this.
Here's
your
114
meeting
tips
in
particular,
there's
the
be
sure
to
sign
up
which
we've
already
talked
about
use.
Meat
echo
to
join
the
mic.
Queue,
keep
your
audio
and
video
off
if
you're,
not
using
the
on-site.
A
If
you're
using
the
on-site,
audio
and
video
off,
if
not
using
the
on-site
version,
I
don't
think
that's
quite
right,
but
yeah
double
negative
yeah,
there's
something
wrong
with
that
sentence.
Wear
masks.
I've
already
talked
about
remote
participants,
make
sure
your
audio
and
video
is
off
unless
you're,
sharing
or
presenting
or
speaking
in
the
queue
feel
free
to
turn
on
your
obviously,
your
audio,
but
definitely
your
video
as
well,
if
you
wish,
for
the
queue
and
use
of
a
headset,
is
strongly
recommended.
A
So
here's
our
agenda
for
the
day.
This
is
our
administrative
and
agenda
bashing
portion.
We
have
a
pretty
light
agenda
dieter
and
I
dropped
the
ball
on
scheduling
our
virtual
interim
that
we
were
going
to
schedule
about
three
or
four
weeks
ago,
and
so
we
don't
have
some
of
the
work
queued
up
here
for
this
meeting
that
we
had
hoped.
A
But
we
do
have
a
few
things
that
we
want
to
go
ahead
and
get
moving,
and
then
we'll
talk
about
scheduling,
virtual
interims
going
forward,
I'm
going
to
preface
it
with
we're
we're
thinking
about
trying
to
go
ahead
and
have
a
standing
virtual
meeting
every
month,
and
that
way
we
can
schedule
it.
If
we
we
can
cancel
it
if
we
don't
have
work
to
do,
but
we're
hoping
that
that'll
keep
us
making
some
progress
in
a
more
timely
manner.
A
Okay,
great
so
our
working
group
status,
the
yang
data
model,
has
been
published.
Thank
you
very
much
to
everybody
that
was
involved
in
all
of
that
work
and
in
particular
dhruv
who
really
drove
the
drove
it
over
the
finish
line,
so
that
has
that
is
completed.
A
We
have
two
documents
currently
in
iesg
stages,
both
interleave
modes
and
the
mode
six
commands
we're
still
working
through
those,
and
hopefully
we
will
make
some
progress
shortly.
On
those
we've
just
issued
a
working
group
last
call
for
the
chronos
document.
This
was
the
working
group
last
call.
It
was
needed
to
have
been
issued
a
little
bit
earlier
to
have
a
conversation
for
this
this
meeting,
but
that
last
call
has
been
issued.
A
I'd
really
like
to
remind
working
group
members
that
when
we
issue
a
working
group
last
call
it
it's
much
more
helpful.
If
people
can
review
and
comment
on
the
mailing
list
about
the
document,
even
if
the
comment
is,
I
think
this
is
ready
to
be
published
because
we
need
to
show
consensus
within
the
working
group.
This
is
a
pretty
small
working
group.
A
It
always
has
been
a
small
working
group,
so
we
need
to
get
that
those
comments
on
the
mailing
list
in
a
timely
manner,
and
then
we
have
two
things
that
are
waiting
on
shepard
write-ups,
the
update
registries.
A
Earlier
this
week,
so
we
agreed
that
at
the
last
virtual
owner-
and
we
agreed
that
the
update
registries
was
had
passed,
working
group
last
call
and
it
was
ready
to
pass
on
to
the
iesg
and
dieter
did
a
review
of
it
and
he
asked
for
a
few
changes.
And
then
the
question
came
up
about
whether
the
document
should
be
informational
standards
track.
The
document
that
it
is
updating
is
a
standards
track
document,
so
we
have
decided
to
switch
it
from
informational
to
standards
track
and
we're
going
to
do.
A
A
Nope,
okay,
the
next
document
that
we
have
sitting
in
our
shepard
write-up
status
is
the
ptp
enterprise
profile.
We
have
gotten
approval
from
the
ieee
to
share
the
underlying
specification
for
that.
For
the
purposes
of
the
review
of
this
document,
we
also
have
updated
text
the
there.
A
A
1588
has
an
active
par
that
is
making
progress
that
will
address
that
issue,
and
so,
for
the
purposes
of
forwarding
this
document,
we
will
be
referencing
that
work
and
then
and
noting
that,
because
of
the
ietf
document,
reference
is,
is
a
representation
or
a
profile
of
the
1588
specification.
A
We
will
be
using
the
language,
that's
in
the
1588
specific
specification,
with
the
understanding
that
1588
is
updating
that
language,
because
the
the
core
specification
is
under
their
their
change
control
and
our
document
is
a
profile
of
that
document.
So,
with
those
two
issues
resolved,
we
will
be
progressing
that
so
that
is
any
questions
on
that
document.
A
Okay,
can
you.
D
Hi
this
is
dennis
riley
from
equinix,
since
I
also
am
on
the
1588
committee
and
know
a
bit
about
that
alternative
terminology.
Draft
going
forward.
Do
I
understand
correctly
that
the
the
current
text
still
references
the
old
language
and
we're
basically,
as
part
of
the
right
write
up
going
to
say,
once
the
alternative
terminology
amendment
gets
approved,
we'll
just
change
it.
A
We're
not
committing
to
go
back
and
and
update
the
document.
What
we're
saying
is
that
we're
using
the
the
language
that
exists
in
the
document
that
is
currently
published?
We
understand
that
that
language
is
being
updated
and
we
advise
people
that
are
implementing
this.
To
refer
to
the
work
of
the
1588,
to
see
what
the
updated
language
would.
A
D
I'm
just
asking
so
I
understand
what
the
implications
are
going
forward.
Thank
you
very
much
right.
A
A
So
with
that
moving
back
to
the
agenda,
then
the
next
topic
is
the
ntp,
v5
use
cases
and
requirements
document
james,
I
know
you're
online.
Did
you
want
to
say
anything
about
that
document?.
C
Yeah,
I
don't
actually
have
a
huge
amount
to
say
other
than
I've
published
a
zero
zero
for
the
working
group
and
really
the
only
change
that's
been
included
in.
It
is
some
editorial
changes
and
mints
that
paul
gear
had
submitted.
C
I
think
in
terms
of
what
I
plan
on
doing
now
is
that
I've
got
about
a
half
dozen
issues
and
things
I
think
need
to
go
in
into
it,
such
as
making
references
to
other
documents
and
clearing
up
some
bits
and
pieces.
C
It
would
be
good
if
the
working
group
could
have
a
review
out
and
pick
it
to
bits
again
and
then
I
think
in
the
following
interim
meetings,
we'll
I'll
have
further
updates
and
if
there's
any
any
normative
language,
that's
particularly
sticking.
We
can
get
consensus,
calls
from
those
meetings.
A
Are
there
any
questions
or
comments
on
the
ntp,
v5
use
cases
and
requirements
document.
E
This
title
speaking,
I
have
a
question:
there's
this
security
requirements
document
from
the
tick
tock
working
group,
and
I
just
wonder:
if
did
you
consider
the
sweat
model
which
is
described
in
the
in
this
document?
C
I
did,
I
haven't,
looked
at
it,
yet
I
wasn't
aware
of
it.
Could
you
send
me
a
link
or
something,
and
I
can
include
it.
A
Yeah,
that
was
the
requirements
document
that
was
done
prior
to
the
development
of
nts,
and
so
that
would
be
a
good
one
to
take
a
look
at.
A
Okay,
we
have
already
covered
the
registry
update
draft
rich.
You
don't
have
anything
else
on
that
right.
We've
covered
everything
we
need
on
that
yep.
So
then
we
have
a
list
of
items
where
we
haven't
had
any
updates.
Yet
the
first
one
is
rough
time
we
had
optimistically
thought
we
would
do
a
hackathon
effort
on
rough
time
at
this
ietf,
but
that
didn't
get
pulled
together
in
time.
We've
had
no
real
updates
to
the
document.
Does
anybody
have
anything?
I'm
not
even.
A
A
B
That
yeah,
I
think
there
was
some
discussion
on
the
mailing
list
about
meeting
those
requirements
and
since
they
don't
seem
to
have
changed
significantly,
maybe
we
can
look
at
it
again.
A
Okay,
james
go
ahead.
C
Three
two
or
three
things
that
were
outstanding
where
the
requirements
didn't
line
up
with
the
draft,
your
draft,
but
I
think
that
was
against
the
previous
version.
So
maybe
it
would
be
an
idea
to
just
go
through
and
recheck
it
revalidate
that
and
we
can.
We
can
talk
about
that
on
the
list.
A
Okay,
miroslav,
do
you
think
it's
worth
doing
the
call
for
adoption
now
or
would
you
rather
wait
a
little
longer.
A
I
think
it
probably
go
ahead
and
I
think
we
should
go
ahead
and
do
the
call
for
adoption.
I
mean
we've
had
it
sitting
there
for
a
while,
I'm
sort
of
glancing
at
the
id
to
see.
If
he's
giving
me
a
different
indication,
no
okay.
A
I
mean
this
is
ntp
v5,
so
it
I
don't
see
that
we
need.
I
think
we
should
go
ahead
and
get
it
in
there.
I
think
people
I
think
if
they
have
the
right,
they
use
the
requirements
document
side
by
side.
With
the
actual
protocol
specification,
then
they'll
be
able
to
do
a
better
analysis
of
how
the
requirements
are
translating
into
reality.
C
So
I've
dug
up
my
old
spreadsheet
and
there
is
five
things
that
are
outstanding.
Two
are.
C
Unknowns
ossification
and
the
three
that
were
not
yet
met
were
minimizing
abuse
capability,
no
notifications
and
connection
reestablishment
with
that.
I
don't
think
these
are
insurmountable
as.
C
For
adoption-
and
we
could-
we
can
work
out
these
later
and
use
consensus-
calls
to
get
them
over
the
line.
A
Okay,
I
think
we'll
go
ahead
and
proceed
with
the
call
for
adoption
of
miroslav's
document
for
ntp,
v5
and
that'll.
Give
us
something
concrete
to
work
towards
the
ntp
over
ptp
document
is
has
been
around
for
a
little
while
miroslav.
Do
you
want
to
comment
on
what
the
next
steps
for
that
are.
B
I
think
this
one
could
go
to
the
call
for
adoption
and
there
will
be
somewhat
needed
recently.
B
A
A
Okay,
so
the
last
work
with
no
updates
is
nts
for
ptp
the
status
of
that
work
is
we
had
two
different
proposals
on
the
table
and
those
the
primary
advocates
of
each
of
those.
Two
proposals
were
going
to
get
together
and
see
if
they
could
merge
those
into
a
single
approach.
A
That
has
not
been
done
yet,
and
so
I
think
we're
we're
kind
of
waiting
on
seeing
how
the
primary
advocates
for
that
work
end
up
falling.
How
that
ends
up
falling
out.
A
A
B
B
And
this
might
be
a
bit
controversial
for
ntp
v5
if,
if
it
would
make
sense
to
support
the
new
time
scale,
local
time,
I've
seen
some
users
using
modified
ntp
and
instead
of
utc,
they
use
local
time.
And
this
greatly
simplifies
the
client's
logic
in
some
small
embedded
computers.
And
I
was
wondering
if
this
is
something
that.
C
A
Okay,
dennis.
D
So
I
think
it's
definitely
something
that
we
should
talk
about.
D
I
can
certainly
understand,
for
instance,
wanting
to
run
a
bunch
of
clocks
off
mtv
ntp
and
have
those
clocks
show
the
local
time,
but
there's
more
than
one
way
to
do
that,
and
I
want
to
elaborate
right
now,
but
it's
definitely
worth
discussing
in
the
context
of
ntbb5
things
like
do
we
never
do.
We
ever
want
to
transmit
the
time
on
the
wire
in
a
different
time
scale,
or
is
it
sufficient
to
just
include
some
fields
that
tell
end
devices
what
the
local
time
is?
A
It
yeah,
I
saw
somebody
pop
into
the
queue
and
then
back
out.
Is
there
anybody
else
that
wanted
to
comment
on
this
topic.
A
A
Okay,
so
to
wrap
up,
we
do
plan,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
we
plan
to
try
to
do
a
virtual
interim
once
a
month
moving
forward.
A
Based
on
how
the
next
few
months
worth
of
of
virtual
meetings
go,
we
will
decide
whether
or
not
to
request
agenda
time
for
ietf
115
or
not.
I
think
one
of
the
keys
is
that
this
agenda
time
is
pretty
valuable,
and
so
I
know
that
I
personally
feel
really
guilty
about
having
a
30-minute
meeting
in
a
two-hour
time
slot
here.
So.
A
A
We
didn't
tee
up
enough
conversations
to
attack,
attract
the
people
that
normally
participate
and
then
the
other
thing
that
that
happened
was
we
scheduled,
I
didn't
even
think
of
the
conflict,
but
we
are
exactly
conflicting
with
the
ieee
1588
plenary,
which
happens
once
a
month
at
10
a.m,
on
wednesdays
and
so,
and
a
couple
of
some
of
our
virtual
participants
are
also
there.
A
So
if
I
paid
more
attention
to
the
it's
only
like
once
a
month,
it
just
so
happens,
you
know:
what's
the
chances.
A
A
A
Might
weird.