Document: draft-ietf-ntp-roughtime Title: Roughtime Reviewer: Christer Holmberg Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. Document: draft-ietf-ntp-roughtime-15 Reviewer: Christer Holmberg Review Date: 2026-01-07 IETF LC End Date: 2026-01-07 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: The document is well written, and easy to read. However, I do have some questions that I would like the authors to address before publication. Major issues: QG_1: The document defines version 1 of the protocol. But there is no guidance regarding future versions of the protocol, e.g., regarding backward compatibility etc. Minor issues: Section 1: (The following questions may be due to me not being an expert on time synchronization protocols.) Q1_1: The text says: "Furthermore, clients may lack even a basic idea of the time, creating bootstrapping problems." I think this needs some clarification. Because, AFAIK NTP and NTS does not require the client to have prior knowledge of the time either, right? Q1_2: The text says: "The primary design goal of Roughtime is to permit devices to obtain a rough idea of the current time" Why does the protocol only allow to obtain a rough idea of the current time, instead of a more precise time? Section 3: Q3_1: The text says: "It does so by having responses from servers include a signature over a value derived from the client's request, which includes a nonce. This provides cryptographic proof that the timestamp was issued after the server received the client's request." It does provide proof that the response was issued after the server received the request, but AFAIU it does not provide any proof regarding when the timestamp was issued. Nits/editorial comments: QG_2: The text contains both "document" and "memo". Unless there is a good reason for that, I suggest using consistent terminology. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
