IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: Quick review of WGLC for status change for draft‑ietf‑ntp‑update‑registries

Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> Thu, 11 August 2022 12:24 UTC

Return-Path: <mlichvar@redhat.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 34CB2C15A722 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 05:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.688
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.688 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.582, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com
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 VKInwvnDEZWA for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 05:24:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B679C159827 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 05:24:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1660220641; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=JXccW05+wjzQkfgdBc7EnfY5X1HLzrpxcSJ5LzEA1Rg=; b=T091QleebE4d//cZNN44aVyzUHNw9CA05tyl4hhPBXW4ZLPDW1v7pSSHd1Tj3SA+dGA5Ka eLhj/vDkoysY5vMOEyCnbnkxdxT6qPfiRFnDDGNM/oU8xVt3Qo4QO6HObp+BcCAB0RFkIM YiG74d9IhJzvfg7CHfNxyo6TjyZyVAk=
Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-325-5n6xhy3fOOK8s8EXWLEHTg-1; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 08:23:58 -0400
X-MC-Unique: 5n6xhy3fOOK8s8EXWLEHTg-1
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFF3C8039AC; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 12:23:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.43.135.229]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E8EC400F36; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 12:23:56 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 14:23:56 +0200
From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
To: Harlan Stenn <stenn@nwtime.org>
Cc: Martin Burnicki <martin.burnicki=40meinberg.de@dmarc.ietf.org>, "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>, Hal Murray <halmurray@sonic.net>
Message-ID: <YvT03A/ByyFwl+bi@localhost>
References: <20220809030711.F00DC28C1CA@107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net> <7eef9a6f-a115-b009-24e5-2b96a8bc02ae@meinberg.de> <YvI4qRV+MOrmYKey@localhost> <de5650d1-bf3a-34bf-9812-acb942364f4f@nwtime.org> <YvTghH4nLX2I0SVV@localhost> <d9563ba1-be2f-3619-cd4f-19ee30206ce2@nwtime.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d9563ba1-be2f-3619-cd4f-19ee30206ce2@nwtime.org>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.85 on 10.11.54.10
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/7KA5tLQLlI7utHv0GNqixDssTVU>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: Quick review of WGLC for status change for draft‑ietf‑ntp‑update‑registries
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: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 12:24:03 -0000

On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 05:00:42AM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> On 8/11/2022 3:57 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > > > There should be no ambiguity with extension fields. NTPv5 is expected
> > > > to be compatible with NTPv4 extension fields. The main use case will
> > > > be NTS. Autokey is insecure and should not be used.
> > > 
> > > I don't understand.  Are you saying that if a v4 client sends an NTS packet
> > > to a v5 server and that packet "passes the checks" then the v5 server should
> > > respond with a v4 response?
> > 
> > If the v5 server supports v4, then yes. If it supports v5 only, it
> > should not respond.
> 
> How do I reconcile what you just said in the previous line with what you
> said in the preceding quoted section?

An extension field which conforms to NTPv4 conforms also the NTPv5. A
code that generates NTS extension fields for NTPv4 does not need to be
changed to work in NTPv5. That doesn't work in the opposite direction.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email