IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Ntp] Antw: Re: SNTP and extension fields (WAS: Re: Antw: Re: Antw: Re: Antw: [EXT] NTPv5 Loop Detection without Stratum)

Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> Wed, 07 September 2022 06:44 UTC

Return-Path: <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
X-Original-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E587C1524D5; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 23:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id btuhbV214zz6; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 23:44:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.uni-regensburg.de (mx4.uni-regensburg.de [IPv6:2001:638:a05:137:165:0:4:4e7a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19023C1524D7; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 23:44:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id E9C516000050; Wed, 7 Sep 2022 08:44:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.5.51]) by mx4.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08CB1600004E; Wed, 7 Sep 2022 08:44:23 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 07 Sep 2022 08:44:23 +0200
Message-Id: <63183DC4020000A10004D799@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 18.4.1
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2022 08:44:20 +0200
From: Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
To: kristof.teichel=40ptb.de@dmarc.ietf.org, mayer@pdmconsulting.net, halmurray@sonic.net
Cc: "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>, "ntp-bounces@ietf.org" <ntp-bounces@ietf.org>
References: <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> <6316E754020000A10004D6D4@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <20220906070439.08DEE28C1D8@107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net> <OF28F46941.3B68CC6E-ONC12588B5.00356D41-C12588B5.0036092A@ptb.de> <4218f5d7-f0f4-936b-16fc-b07c27d3e421@pdmconsulting.net> <F347640002000095FDA5B133@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <8F7E1DA8020000866A6A8CFC@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <3510EFC5020000235AEBDC6A@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <BAEB6CF0020000ABFDA5B133@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <6316E754020000A10004D6D4@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <8A9B26A002000006FDA5B133@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <477674D5020000905CC44D44@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <7744D1210200000C5AEBDC6A@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <7744D1210200000C5AEBDC6A@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/1UTSc5UXWxCl1suBDgj9EN7GsXE>
Subject: [Ntp] Antw: Re: SNTP and extension fields (WAS: Re: Antw: Re: Antw: Re: Antw: [EXT] NTPv5 Loop Detection without Stratum)
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Time Protocol <ntp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ntp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ntp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2022 06:44:34 -0000

>>> Danny Mayer <mayer@pdmconsulting.net> schrieb am 06.09.2022 um 17:37 in
Nachricht <4218f5d7-f0f4-936b-16fc-b07c27d3e421@pdmconsulting.net>:

> On 9/6/22 5:50 AM, kristof.teichel=40ptb.de@dmarc.ietf.org wrote:

...

>> If that's correct: can we afford to rule out modern (well-scaling) 
>> authentication for any and all SNTP clients?
>>
> Yes, we want authenticated packets even in an SNTP implementation. 

"want" meaning CAN, SHOULD, or MUST? ;-)
I cgree that CANNOT/MUST NOT would be bad.

Regards,
Ulrich

> Saying we don't care about authentication won't get through IETF today.
> 
> Danny

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email