NTP WG Meeting Minutes 
1740-1940, 23 July 2007 

Karen O'Donoghue and Brian Haberman called the 
meeting to order. Jack Burbank volunteered to take 
minutes, and Yakoov Stein agreed to act as jabber scribe. 
Karen addressed basic administrative issues including blue 
sheets and agenda bashing. 

Agenda:
     1) Milestone summary
     2) Work items update (protocol spec - WG last call results, MIB, etc.)
     3) Related external work (IEEE 1588, IEEE 802.1AS, ITU)
     4) Future Work (NTP, TICTOC)

Milestone update:
   - Scope and Requirements and Algorithms Specifications deferred or cancelled 
   - Protocol Spec and MIB Spec are proceeding 
   - Other non-charter documents have been identified as required 
        * NTP control process (needed to depracate RFC 1305) 
		* Informational RFC (draft in process)
        * Autokey as Informational RFC (Volunteer for editor identified)

Results of Last Call on protocol specification:
   - Comments from 6 individuals
   - Endorsements from 6 individuals


* MIB Presentation (Chris Elliott)
==================================
     
Summary of modifications to MIB: 

-Changed wording to refer to entity instead of service, service instance, etc.
-Changed object names (Srv->Ent) to reflect the above change
-Added association stratum object -> ntpAssocStratum
-Added Leap Second objects
-Modifications to draft text
	-Changed RFC to Internet
	-Changed wording to refer to entity instead of 
		service, service instance, as per the MIB
	-Revised the security considerations as there are 
		now read-write objects
	-Added myself as co-author
	-Fixed some lines that were longer than 72 characters
-Also have some proposed changes to the draft
	-Proposed items: Define TCs for types that might be useful elsewhere.  

Proposed: Stratum TC and NTP time TC
	-Notification for when synced
	-Change conformance/compliance for different uses:  

NTP entities, SNTP entities.  For NTP, all objects and notifications mandatory.  A subset of objects are mandatory for SNTP.  All notifications are optional for SNTP.

Questions from floor:

Has anyone proposed that an SNTP entity be managed?  
Response:  No one has proposed either SNTP or NTP entities as being managed.

On TC for Stratum, is this useful?  
Response: No harm, but no benefit.

Mills has changed timestamp.  
Response:  Was not aware of change, will likely need revision.

Clarification from Karen:  NTP MIB -02 just missed cut-off.  
There is an update from 02 that is available.  
An 03 will be posted soon.

NTPv4 Protocol Specification WG Last Call Changes (Jim Martin)
==============================================================

-Review Process:
    -WGLC comments received
    	-Compiled comments and resolutions based on mailing list discussion
        -Made extensive typographical changes
        -Generated candidate -07 version based on substantive comments

-Updated documents available:  www.innovationslab.net/ntp/
	-draft-ietf-ntpv4-proto-07.txt (latest candidate draft)
	-ntpv4-06-comments.pdf (Explicit changelog based on WGLC comments)

-Slide content available: www.innovationslab.net/ntp/ntp-06-comments-slides.pdf

Comments/Questions from Floor:  

Mark Townsley concerned with usage of the term "private networks" 
in resolving Stewart Bryant comments
* Proposal to use stratum (i.e. a different stratum level) as a protection mechanism
* Tim Sheppard proposed use of port number
* Yakov proposed using a field in header that could be used as indicator
* Karen proposed to modify text (eliminate reference to private networks) 
to remove issue
*The consensus was that the term "private networks" will be removed from draft

-Comment from Tony Hain, refid should not be associated with IP address
*Jim believes that text in draft is OK
*It was agreed that this will be verified

-Comment from Stewart Bryant:  need to specify precisely the start bit
* Yakov and Stewart Bryant agreed to contribute text to resolve this issue

-Discussion regarding IANA
* The group consensus was that the group needs to precisely identify 
items that are to be IANA Managed
*Need to identify and articulate policies

-Next steps:
* Please review this week
* WG Chairs - Request security considerations review by Pat Cain
* Submit candidate draft to I-D editor after meeting

Update on related efforts (Karen O'Donoghue)
============================================

-1588 Version 2: Sponsor ballot closes August 8, Face-to-face scheduled for October
-IEEE 802.1AS: First task group ballot will be issued after update from editor

End of formal agenda

Mark Townsley: In Vancouver, he would like to see IETF Last Call and IESG comments.

Update on status of TICTOC (Yaakov Stein)
=========================================
-Few action items from Prague
-Updated charter is ready
- In Prague, 6-7 folks said they are interested in working, but 
mailing list is quiet
- We want folks to come back and express interest

A long discussion at end of meeting discussing the future of 
timekeeping here in the IETF.  Is the future 1588 over IP?  
NTP over IP?  No consensus was reached.

The meeting was adjourned.