Re: [Ntp] WGLC: draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp

[Martin Langer <[e-mail]>]

Hello together,

the current NTS draft is fine for me and I have just a few comments.


page 7:

"Implementations MUST NOT negotiate TLS versions earlier than 1.2,
SHOULD negotiate TLS 1.3 [RFC8446] or later when possible, and MAY
refuse to negotiate any TLS version which has been superseded by a
later supported version."

-> I guess the minimum TLS version MUST be 1.3. The effort for 
developers should be very small.
In OpenSSL, I only need one extra line of code to force TLS1.3 and 
disable TLS1.2. Many implementations
support the final TLS1.3 (RFC) or the latest TLS draft (see: 
https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/wiki/Implementations).
The remaining platforms will probably follow soon. Therefore, I see no 
further need to support older TLS versions
than 1.3.



page 8:

"The semantics of record types 0-6 are specified in this memo."
-> must be '0-7'



page 15:

"Nonce length: Two octets in network byte order, ..."
-> must be 'Nonce Length:'



page 16:

"Additional Padding: Clients which use a nonce length shorter than
the maximum allowed by the negotiated AEAD algorithm may be
required to include additional zero-padding. The necessary length
of this field is specified below."

-> This confused me the first time. I thought it was a mistake and meant 
'minimum'.
'maximum' is right, but should we leave this information here?

Alternative form:
"Additional Padding: The nonce length used by the client maybe required
to include additional zero-padding depending on the negotiated AEAD
algorithm."



page 17:

"The purpose of the Additional Padding field is to ensure that servers
can always choose a nonce whose length is adequate to ensure its
uniqueness, even if the client chooses a shorter one, and still
ensure that the overall length of the server’s response packet. does
not exceed the length of the request."

-> in the penultimate line is a dot



page 19:

-> The timelines are different in length. (the client line need one more 
'-')



page 27:

"The Network Time Security Warning Codes Registry SHALL initally be
empty except for the reserved range, i.e.:"

-> typo: 'initially'



best regards,
Martin




Am 06.11.2018 um 21:46 schrieb Karen O'Donoghue:
> Folks,
>
> This message initiates a three plus week working group last call for:
>
> Network Time Security for the Network Time Protocol
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp/
>
> Please review the referenced document and send any comments to the mailing list including your assessment of whether this document is mature enough to proceed to the IESG. Please note that these messages of support for progression to the mailing list will be used to determine WG consensus to proceed.
>
> Please send all comments in by COB on Friday 30 November. We realize this is a bit longer than normal but we are coming out of an IETF week and heading into the Thanksgiving holiday in the US.
>
> Thanks!
> Karen and Dieter
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp

-- 
Martin Langer, M.Eng.
Ostfalia Hochschule für angewandte Wissenschaften
- Hochschule Braunschweig/Wolfenbüttel
University of Applied Sciences

Labor Datentechnik, Labor Design Digitaler Systeme
Fakultät Elektrotechnik
Salzdahlumer Straße 46/48
38302 Wolfenbüttel
Germany

Tel. : [phone]
Web  : https://www.ostfalia.de/cms/de/pws/bermbach/mitarbeiter/martin-langer