Session Date/Time: 28 Apr 2026 14:30
Certainly! Here is a full verbatim transcript of the audio provided.
Karen O’Donoghue: Okay, it is time. We are at the half-hour, so it’s time for the meeting to start. I expect this will be a really short meeting.
There is a notes page, so anyone who wants to contribute to the notes can add to that. There’s the link for the notes page.
This is an official meeting of the IETF. All the rules and processes of the IETF apply. This is the Note Well; you have agreed to this document when you signed up for your Datatracker account, and by participating in this meeting, you agree to abide by all the rules and processes of the IETF. If you have any questions regarding any of these, feel free to reach out to Dieter or myself.
Minutes will be taken on that notes page and then incorporated by Dieter into our official minutes.
We have a pretty short agenda for today. This is our agenda. Is there any additions or changes to that agenda?
The primary objective of this meeting is to check on the status of the three documents that we’re working on and see what the next steps on each of those documents are.
We do have two documents that have moved beyond the working group and they are both now with the RFC Editor, so hopefully the NTP over PTP has been with the RFC Editor now for over 150 days, so hopefully that’ll be making—that’ll be popping out pretty soon. The Rough Time document was approved by the IESG roughly in the timeframe of the last IETF meeting. There was substantive effort put in by the authors to address all of the balloting comments from the IETF last call and the IESG, and that document has now passed the IESG and moved to the RFC Editor as well.
We have three current working group drafts. The first one is draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv5. I know that there was a couple of pretty extensive reviews. I see both Miroslav and Tal here, so do one of you want to speak on the current status of that document and how we’re doing with all of those comments received?
Miroslav Lichvar: Yes, there was not much progress since the last meeting. There were comments, but I think that was pretty much all about the clarity of the text and not technical issues. We have four outstanding issues that have pull requests on GitHub. That hasn’t changed. There is this one about handling of flags in the header, greasing of extension fields, separating mandatory and optional parts, and replacing Bloom filter with a list of reference IDs. I sent a list—sent an email to the list asking for comments, but there was no response, so I don’t know how we can proceed with that.
Karen O’Donoghue: Go ahead, Tal.
Tal Mizrahi: Yeah, so I think in the last interim meeting we talked about the possibility of having a consensus call for these open issues, and I think the four open issues that Miroslav mentioned—I think at least two of them are not that major. Two of them might require a bit more discussion, but I think a consensus call could really help here and once there’s a decision, I think that pushing forward the document towards a mature version will probably be much easier.
Karen O’Donoghue: Okay. I’m scanning my email to find—I remember you sent that email with the issues as I requested and now I can’t find that email.
Tal Mizrahi: The subject of the email was “version 8.” It was the same email that was the official release of version 8 of the draft.
Karen O’Donoghue: Okay, I do recall the email. The two issues that you think we should do the consensus calls on are which ones?
Tal Mizrahi: So, in my opinion, let me open the email. One issue was regarding the Bloom filter versus Miroslav’s latest suggestion, and the other was grease—the grease suggestion. I think the other two issues are less—kind of less major issues, probably don’t require a consensus call.
Karen O’Donoghue: All right, then for the two that don’t require a consensus call, how would you like to resolve them? Do you need any more input or are you prepared to just make one? Does anybody else on the call have an opinion of how it should be done? Go ahead, Miroslav. Did you get in the queue? I guess you did.
Miroslav Lichvar: Basically, I would like to hear from someone else than David and me about this issue.
Karen O’Donoghue: Okay. Let me—let me see if I can construct some consensus calls or emails to the mailing list to address each of these as separate topics. I will come back to you and Dieter and Tal and see if I—make sure we get the wording clear enough that we think we can get some action out of it. But I think that sometimes we get better response if we have, you know, a narrow email with a specific subject, so I’ll see if I can get that.
All right, so we have the four issues. We’ll send a separate email on each one—well, so, Tal, for the replacing mandatory and optional, I’ll go ahead and—and do a separate email for that and just say that the current plan is for you to go ahead and implement that. Is that okay?
Tal Mizrahi: Yeah, sure.
Karen O’Donoghue: All right. And for Ulrich’s email, you think that’s primarily editorial and you and Miroslav can work through that?
Miroslav Lichvar: I think it’s mostly editorial.
Karen O’Donoghue: Okay.
Tal Mizrahi: Makes sense. Yeah.
Karen O’Donoghue: All right. It was a long email, I didn’t know how—I didn’t…
Miroslav Lichvar: I think most of those are already addressed, like the remaining issues, and it wasn’t very clear to me if Ulrich is okay with how those were addressed or if there is still some work to do, but I think this is all minor.
Karen O’Donoghue: Okay, it’s all minor. Can one of you reply on the mailing list to that email from him then? If you think it’s all—it’s all roughly been—well, I’m not sure what your plan is for the next update to the document, but if it’s all been addressed, if you could say it’s all been addressed, please review, or if you’ve not addressed it, if you can just highlight the ones that have not been—just some way to respond to his email that it’s been—I know you sent out an email, Miroslav, that said, “This is a long list and I’ll get back to it” or something to that effect.
Miroslav Lichvar: Yeah, and I responded point-by-point.
Karen O’Donoghue: Oh yeah, you did respond point-by-point. That’s a lot of points. All right, so do you have an idea when a next—when you might want to push a next version? Do you want to do it after the—after we do some consensus calls on these four topics?
Miroslav Lichvar: Yes, I think that would make sense. Like, there are a couple months left, right?
Karen O’Donoghue: There’s a couple months before the Vienna meeting, yeah. I would like to get a pretty major update of this done in advance of the Vienna meeting because we are hoping to have some hackathon activity around NTPv5 in Vienna. It’s a better candidate for us to do a hackathon project at because of—the China time zone was a bad time zone to do it in, but Vienna should be a good one. So I hope people are keeping those dates clear. To remind everybody, it is—it would be the 18th and 19th of July. I know that’s getting close to summer vacation time for everybody, but the IETF meeting will be basically from the 18th to the 24th. Hackathon will be the 18th and 19th, and depending on the number of people we have in person, I will try to get the NTP meeting itself scheduled on Monday or Tuesday if possible.
So, anything else on the NTPv5? We don’t have too many people here today, so basically you guys are talking to yourselves and accomplishing what I wanted, which was to figure out how we can make a little progress in this area. So, all right, anything else on this one? No?
All right, the next one is the draft-ietf-ntp-nts-for-ptp. I see that neither Martin nor Reiner are here. There is—progress is being made on that in the 1588 working group and there’s a plan to update the NTS for PTP related to that. Dieter and I have an email on a IANA action—or a IANA question from Reiner and hopefully that will get resolved. If anybody needs access to the PTP 1588 versions of the document, and as a reminder, the NTS—how to use NTS for PTP is being done in 1588 and the additions to NTS that are required to support that are being done here, and that’s what’s in this document. Any questions on this document? No.
All right, so on the draft-ietf-ntp-nts-keyexchange-pool document, we would like to get some review on that document. We also have an open request to do an early allocation for IANA. David posted that early allocation request to the mailing list a few weeks ago. There has been no conversation on that, so Dieter and I plan to progress with asking the working group more formally if there’s any objection and then moving forward with that request. Ruben, did you have any comments on that? Or I know David is not going to be here today.
Ruben Nijveld: No, not really. I think you pretty much said it.
Karen O’Donoghue: Yeah, I did get an opportunity to talk to David very briefly about an hour ago, so I think if there’s no—there’s no opposition to that document moving forward—I mean, there’s no opposition to the early request moving forward, and then we really do need some people to take a good look and review that document.
And with that, is there any other business? This might be our shortest meeting yet. My current plan is—Dieter, did you…
Dieter Sibold: Yes, I just wanted to ask you if you could stay in the meeting afterwards.
Karen O’Donoghue: If I could stay in the meeting? Oh yeah, I can stay in the meeting, yeah, that’s fine.
So, going forward, we have discussed having a short virtual interim in the end of May to see how we’re doing with the actions to get these three documents done and then—and then our—so we hope to have a virtual interim sometime late May, early June, and then we will have the IETF meeting that’s in July. It would be helpful if we could get an update to some of these documents posted at least once before the Vienna meeting so that we can have a really productive Vienna meeting. The following meeting will be—the following face-to-face is in San Francisco in November and that’s going to be a little bit more challenging for some people, so I think Vienna is our sweet spot to get some of this wrapped up. It would be nice—I think—I think the NTPv5 document with the exception of these open issues is pretty close and so I’d like to see it move forward.
Any other comments? Thank you all very much for showing up and we will chat next time. Please review and comment on the mailing list.
Tal Mizrahi: Thanks, bye-bye.
Karen O’Donoghue: Bye.
Miroslav Lichvar: Thank you.
Karen O’Donoghue: Can we switch to Zoom? If I—can you hear me, Dieter?
Dieter Sibold: Yeah, I can hear you.
Karen O’Donoghue: Can we just switch to Zoom?
Dieter Sibold: Oh yeah, we—we can do—do you send me the link?
Karen O’Donoghue: Yeah, can you—are you on Slack at the moment?
Dieter Sibold: Can you send the link in this chat? It’s easier to take.
Karen O’Donoghue: Oh, yeah. Yeah, I can do that. Hold on a sec. Did you get it?
Dieter Sibold: Okay.
Karen O’Donoghue: All right, so you have it.