IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] Draft extension NTS for pools

Hal Murray <halmurray@sonic.net> Wed, 03 January 2024 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <halmurray@sonic.net>
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 7E72CC151991 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jan 2024 12:37:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sonic.net
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 DudrjtyN5Boc for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jan 2024 12:37:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from d.mail.sonic.net (d.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98EF5C15198F for <ntp@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jan 2024 12:37:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net (104-182-38-69.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [104.182.38.69]) (authenticated bits=0) by d.mail.sonic.net (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 403KbCtG010307 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 3 Jan 2024 12:37:13 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sonic.net; s=net23; t=1704314234; bh=o1lJfIwCSVWs8iKUc16VCL6z3T6hf4Fb5q2zdXGgRsc=; h=To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Date:Message-Id:From:Subject; b=aUqsBBqpE86NiW7c9U26BE5Jf1eylyyMEJIG/wfq+BxIcta5qSKYG2onjOA2FGO7I SZ1jiLv66noCJWhzIaDgz2R72hSk4l7+YF4eXwvLstQAse1oxONnParOi7krZYr7Kt iOm1+mrJNWRwOs7nGWiAytkwkEInfLpVVj3g8w5kPZEftzxkY/l1uUjPrWAAwzASZL Y/vzdq1jJ+DTqkr2OdUTxhpaUM4Dgh/bD/slbacMjJp9mPW6TKuRGMYLDMJqKHdq9q WQf2mdrRmXog3LLZRDt0ik0oswo9AQzRWsDxshUlyIGmv5XNdrJV78uGPvj3p0lGZm f1yQItZCdIk1w==
Received: from hgm (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by 107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCAAA28C1C3; Wed, 3 Jan 2024 12:37:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.9.0 11/07/2018 with nmh-1.8
To: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
cc: NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>, Hal Murray <halmurray@sonic.net>
From: Hal Murray <halmurray@sonic.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> of "Wed, 03 Jan 2024 08:09:15 +0100." <ZZUIG_6jxqtb0e5T@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2024 12:37:12 -0800
Message-Id: <20240103203712.BCAAA28C1C3@107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net>
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVZbsVgdMopKqdnGtSdKGdjhaXBfwfyhHn0ZmTpuB8lYeJKchQhheTkoB5f2HVpeHlwT5ngNAst/4B2zjWPD8M5fwD9Y+uq4GCo=
X-Sonic-ID: C;1knj33eq7hGpukZFP63e0g== M;+E/333eq7hGpukZFP63e0g==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: -1.5/5.0 by cerberusd
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/2THFmr5fhZ1tYWL9VOltifygcMw>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Draft extension NTS for pools
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, 03 Jan 2024 20:37:18 -0000

mlichvar@redhat.com said:
> Have you considered a different approach, where the server instead of acting
> as a proxy simply provides a list of hostnames and NTS-KE as the next
> protocol? 

Why not use DNS SRV?

Is the next protocol needed?

Is there a good DNS library (for c) that supports SRV?


-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email