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 <iesg-secretary at ietf.org>
Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 11:33 PM
Subject: [Ntp] Document Action: 'Roughtime' to Experimental RFC
(draft-ietf-ntp-roughtime-19.txt)
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce at ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg at ietf.org>, <draft-ietf-ntp-roughtime at ietf.org>, <
ek.ietf at gmail.com>, <kodonog at pobox.com>, <ntp-chairs at ietf.org>, <
ntp at ietf.org>, <rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org>
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 Éric Vyncke.
A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-roughtime/
Technical Summary
This document describes Roughtime—a protocol that aims to achieve 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 -- ntp at ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ntp-leave at ietf.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20260319/82c962ca/attachment.html>