Re: [Ntp] NTS4UPTP Rev 03 - Formal request for WG adoption

Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com> Tue, 01 June 2021 20:50 UTC

Return-Path: <dfoxfranke@gmail.com>
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 55ED43A26F5 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y0gh4idDhY3e for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x434.google.com (mail-pf1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::434]) (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 A387B3A26F3 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x434.google.com with SMTP id t28so431467pfg.10 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 01 Jun 2021 13:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rGLmddr4DtAbjEFbSZqUmpMi2Ar9tORcfuHPYjJweAg=; b=Wn5e4fPoJx3gB714hJ9PaNSK2JB3IeRCwgHwcy6uBaeLkPtltwAplENQPUD9nip4SG EBgcjtF/REJSkO5Ol1IUaG5O1eBglfTsBJFShfRarNqKpmXzUut/AUMA8HgF56hCS3Ys K9yMVwwsEaFmLhn/laYuo3SCnnIaW9tqbPQ/xUTbIBmgEtt64XZKBruw/BEiKOGJ/fzE 1yHgRrfzw3JEP4U3v3aVjYwol4OVvj3koa3yJevlqsBJRw3c974Hn3bAdI2jrJTXyem0 3680e2C5uyCscsk/5K6BV4Qjdrdo2PrL0dp0uQt2mviRadgKAobqjQWukXVFZqVDO34K uPCw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rGLmddr4DtAbjEFbSZqUmpMi2Ar9tORcfuHPYjJweAg=; b=FgtR+tuF1E5Lhq4I3iA55c+oXdzZ4TyBVYgAF+3giLpD/ttbXz4Cjgd6RjR9ZFDKfx LQ9xD5/+jJfX+AJkqjyvX4OAWAZxi23hiKN/AWi2RiBtpKCb48d8PxxxL/KaRThZwb8y uPM3s/hDwULeVWsBqmxPwodwOsa9HyoYVpSmC771Cfp31bw9pHf6mv1SJvSP0yW1rXd+ efoxPfODz4fw5WdvCdFOhkyVnqSShXs5SJ3lXCorRmXOWD2x7bh1XxzZ4SFdnwOvAkKl wNJJRS1em6rHit2YdxgUQd+vZC/fV/hEMbaGx2uIVWFkQ/LFaZXd9JbKYic45Ykh2zLn aBFA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531BghZetnk44fqy4D0cBRaPjRz6ArsY4gPusYDS0TmGw4WXR/G7 MGNHxLqh1bjyS1LrgvOazWtps7Yez5LEfQmcX54=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwdYZMgFYfEF+eKjzqMaKiLLrZSloggn+0wEWCCYkbKWPnh4iMm8AAN8cw+7cwxq/C7DHuFmb7ORzEzy+sWPpc=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8f3a:0:b029:2e9:c63a:312e with SMTP id y26-20020aa78f3a0000b02902e9c63a312emr14366636pfr.73.1622580603614; Tue, 01 Jun 2021 13:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <mailman.3706.1622570606.6256.ntp@ietf.org> <OFEB806F52.236EFE69-ON852586E7.0069170B-852586E7.0070F0AF@ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <OFEB806F52.236EFE69-ON852586E7.0069170B-852586E7.0070F0AF@ibm.com>
From: Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2021 16:49:52 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJm83bC8FTeriWdO=eXRLxXu2O1V6V6de1xXM1jiu6s6bKwT6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steve Guendert <Steve.Guendert@ibm.com>
Cc: NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007f788905c3ba7ced"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/5P-Vkn-BHl_aqjEt0x52wWSeVOY>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] NTS4UPTP Rev 03 - Formal request for WG adoption
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <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: Tue, 01 Jun 2021 20:50:07 -0000

On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 4:34 PM Steve Guendert <Steve.Guendert@ibm.com>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am the IBM Z (IBM mainframe servers) time synchronization architect and
> engineering lead. I have been following the thread with great interest
> because our mainframe customers are quite interested in the subject.  95 of
> the 100 largest banks in the world run their mission critical applications
> on IBM mainframes leading many to say the world's economy runs on IBM
> mainframes.  They are the largest data center environments in the world.
> Time synchronization accuracy, resiliency, and security are top of mind for
> their CIOs and CTOs.  I am usually quiet on these threads.  However,  since
> you are debating something that is of critical urgency to my customers, on
> their behalf I am "chiming in".
>
> Many of you whom also work for "vendors" have these very same customers as
> your own customers for your products.
>
> These IBM mainframe customers  are/will be implementing *unicast* PTP for
> their mainframe environments.   What to do for time synch security (PTP and
> NTP)  is the big question.   While the core business applications run on
> mainframes, these same customers have extensive open systems environments
> as well, much of which could be running NTP.
>
> I talked with the largest American multinational bank about this topic
> early last week , and earlier in May with our 40 largest mainframe
> customers across all industries and geographies.  The proposal off NTS4UPTP
> and its ideas is very important to our customers because they see 1) PTP as
> a vital part of their future, 2) the  idea provides a PTP security solution
> and 3) as I said earlier, they will still use NTP for some things and the
> proposal would essentially allow them to use a common security mechanism
> for both NTP and PTP.  *A solution that secures only NTP and leaves out
> PTP is not acceptable to them. * *It would leave the mainframe time synch
> environment unprotected.  *
> Now, you may be thinking, well those mainframe environments will just go
> back to/stay with NTP.  Guess again.  What will happen is we will be forced
> to develop something on our own for PTP that meets their needs.  Standards
> based is much preferable to proprietary, but you do what the customer
> demands.
>
> Too many times, standards bodies seem to focus on "politics" or protecting
> things/ideas  we may have worked on in the past or personalities.  Most of
> you don't know me and I don't know you.  I'm just here as someone with
> intimate first hand knowledge of what a lot of big end users of time
> synchronization want   to tell you that there are a lot of very large end
> user companies who would benefit greatly from adopting the proposal under
> discussion.
>
> Therefore, on behalf of IBM's mainframe customers I would like to ask for
> support of the adoption of NTS4UPTP Rev 3
>
What are the desiderata of "secure PTP" in your view and that of your
customers? What must it guarantee, and what adversaries must it guarantee
them against?