Re: [ntpwg] NTS: The question of CMS vs. (D)TLS
Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> Fri, 05 June 2015 12:28 UTC
Return-Path: <ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3FF51A0393 for <ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jun 2015 05:28:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 I9Vt0_JrkNNG for <ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jun 2015 05:28:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DE851A0377 for <ntp-archives-ahFae6za@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jun 2015 05:28:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8842D86DB8A for <ntp-archives-ahFae6za@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jun 2015 12:28:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB8C986D4A6 for <ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>; Fri, 5 Jun 2015 11:49:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <fweimer@redhat.com>) id 1Z0q7f-000BTa-1R for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Fri, 05 Jun 2015 11:49:23 +0000
Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DD46C6A00; Fri, 5 Jun 2015 11:49:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (oldenburg.str.redhat.com [10.33.200.60]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t55BnCAm019653 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 5 Jun 2015 07:49:13 -0400
Message-ID: <55718CB8.7040607@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 13:49:12 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: kristof.teichel@ptb.de
References: <OF782BF2A6.6279FB98-ONC1257E5B.003389DB-C1257E5B.0036C269@ptb.de>
In-Reply-To: <OF782BF2A6.6279FB98-ONC1257E5B.003389DB-C1257E5B.0036C269@ptb.de>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.24
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.132.183.28
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: fweimer@redhat.com
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org)
Subject: Re: [ntpwg] NTS: The question of CMS vs. (D)TLS
X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol <ntpwg.lists.ntp.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ntp.org/options/ntpwg>, <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ntp.org/pipermail/ntpwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg>, <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org
Sender: ntpwg <ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org>
On 06/05/2015 11:58 AM, kristof.teichel@ptb.de wrote: > (2) Draft for utilization of NTS for NTP > (draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp) > - In this draft, we intend to specify that for bootstrapping, an > implementation MUST support the use of the CMS-based message exchanges, as > described in the informational appendix mentioned above. > - We will further specify that an implementation MAY also support other > methods for bootstrapping, for example exchanging the necessary data via > DTLS or DANE. Any such method needs to fulfill the requirements given in > the main draft. This seems okay to me, as long as there is a clean separation between the negotiation and post-negotation phase, and the session ticket is treated as an opaque blob (of variable length). I would have to see the actual language to be sure. -- Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg
- [ntpwg] NTS: The question of CMS vs. (D)TLS kristof.teichel
- Re: [ntpwg] NTS: The question of CMS vs. (D)TLS Florian Weimer
- Re: [ntpwg] NTS: The question of CMS vs. (D)TLS Richard Welty
- Re: [ntpwg] NTS: The question of CMS vs. (D)TLS Richard Welty
- Re: [ntpwg] NTS: The question of CMS vs. (D)TLS dieter.sibold
- Re: [ntpwg] NTS: The question of CMS vs. (D)TLS Florian Weimer
- Re: [ntpwg] NTS: The question of CMS vs. (D)TLS dieter.sibold
- Re: [ntpwg] NTS: The question of CMS vs. (D)TLS kristof.teichel
- Re: [ntpwg] NTS: The question of CMS vs. (D)TLS Florian Weimer
- [ntpwg] Antwort: Re: NTS: The question of CMS vs.… kristof.teichel