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

[Daniel Franke <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 4:34 PM Steve Guendert <[e-mail]>
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?