Fwd: [Ntp] Document Action: 'Roughtime' to Experimental RFC (draft-ietf-ntp-roughtime-19.txt)
Ira McDonald via ipp <[email protected]> Thu, 19 Mar 2026 23:13:35 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAN40gSvVt8-feoPgPGVwdg2Gvy8+ZbXL-c=kKLtTK+mu2YsiKA@mail.gmail.com> |
--===============2957573774312617748== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000098159064d6c13ac" --000000000000098159064d6c13ac Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, FYI - Roughtime is intended specifically to give "good enough" time for certificate validation (+/- 10 seconds) and provide a bootstrap when systems do a full restart - both useful for IPP. Note that it's intentionally registered as an "Experimental" protocol (although it's already widely deployed in Cloud and CDN infrastructures). Cheers, - Ira ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: The IESG <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 11:33=E2=80=AFPM Subject: [Ntp] Document Action: 'Roughtime' to Experimental RFC (draft-ietf-ntp-roughtime-19.txt) To: IETF-Announce <[email protected]> Cc: The IESG <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, < [email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, < [email protected]>, <[email protected]> The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Roughtime' (draft-ietf-ntp-roughtime-19.txt) as Experimental RFC This document is the product of the Network Time Protocols Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Erik Kline and =C3=89ric Vyncke. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-roughtime/ Technical Summary This document describes Roughtime=E2=80=94a protocol that aims to achiev= e two things: secure rough time synchronization even for clients without any idea of what time it is, and giving clients a format by which to report any inconsistencies they observe between time servers. This document specifies the on-wire protocol required for these goals, and discusses aspects of the ecosystem needed for it to work. Working Group Summary Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Nothing of note. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type Review, on what date was the request posted? Several existing implementations. Personnel The Document Shepherd for this document is Karen O'Donoghue. The Responsible Area Director is Erik Kline. IANA Note Two new registries, two mime types, one port requested. _______________________________________________ ntp mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] --000000000000098159064d6c13ac Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div><div>FYI - Roughtime is inten= ded specifically to give "good enough" time for certificate valid= ation</div><div>(+/- 10 seconds) and provide a bootstrap when systems do a = full restart - both useful for IPP.</div><div><br></div><div>Note that it&#= 39;s intentionally registered as an "Experimental" protocol (alth= ough it's already</div><div>widely deployed in Cloud and CDN infrastruc= tures).=C2=A0=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>- Ira</div><= br><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class= =3D"gmail_attr">---------- Forwarded message ---------<br>From: <b class=3D= "gmail_sendername" dir=3D"auto">The IESG</b> <span dir=3D"auto"><<a href= =3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>></span><= br>Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 11:33=E2=80=AFPM<br>Subject: [Ntp] Document A= ction: 'Roughtime' to Experimental RFC (draft-ietf-ntp-roughtime-19= .txt)<br>To: IETF-Announce <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">ie= [email protected]</a>><br>Cc: The IESG <<a href=3D"mailto:iesg@iet= f.org">[email protected]</a>>, <<a href=3D"mailto:draft-ietf-ntp-roughti= [email protected]">[email protected]</a>>, <<a href=3D"mai= lto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>>, <<a href=3D"mailto:ko= [email protected]">[email protected]</a>>, <<a href=3D"mailto:ntp-chai= [email protected]">[email protected]</a>>, <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]= rg">[email protected]</a>>, <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]"= >[email protected]</a>><br></div><br><br>The IESG has approved t= he following document:<br> - 'Roughtime'<br> =C2=A0 (draft-ietf-ntp-roughtime-19.txt) as Experimental RFC<br> <br> This document is the product of the Network Time Protocols Working Group.<b= r> <br> The IESG contact persons are Erik Kline and =C3=89ric Vyncke.<br> <br> A URL of this Internet-Draft is:<br> <a href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-roughtime/" rel= =3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ie= tf-ntp-roughtime/</a><br> <br> <br> <br> <br> Technical Summary<br> <br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0This document describes Roughtime=E2=80=94a protocol that aims= to achieve two<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0things: secure rough time synchronization even for clients wit= hout<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0any idea of what time it is, and giving clients a format by wh= ich to<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0report any inconsistencies they observe between time servers.= =C2=A0 This<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0document specifies the on-wire protocol required for these goa= ls, and<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0discusses aspects of the ecosystem needed for it to work.<br> <br> Working Group Summary<br> <br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0For example, was there controversy about particular points <br= > =C2=A0 =C2=A0or were there decisions where the consensus was<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0particularly rough? <br> <br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0Nothing of note.<br> <br> Document Quality<br> <br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0Are there existing implementations of the protocol?=C2=A0 Have= a <br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0significant number of vendors indicated their plan to<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0implement the specification?=C2=A0 Are there any reviewers tha= t<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0merit special mention as having done a thorough review,<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?=C2=A0 = If<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,<br= > =C2=A0 =C2=A0what was its course (briefly)?=C2=A0 In the case of a Media Ty= pe<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0Review, on what date was the request posted?<br> <br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0Several existing implementations.<br> <br> Personnel<br> <br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0The Document Shepherd for this document is Karen O'Donoghu= e. The<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0Responsible Area Director is Erik Kline.<br> <br> IANA Note<br> <br> =C2=A0 Two new registries, two mime types, one port requested.<br> <br> _______________________________________________<br> ntp mailing list -- <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">ntp@i= etf.org</a><br> To unsubscribe send an email to <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" targe= t=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a><br> </div></div> --000000000000098159064d6c13ac-- --===============2957573774312617748== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ipp mailing list [email protected] https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp --===============2957573774312617748==--