[Ntp] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: NTS4UPTP Rev 03 - Formal request for WG adoption (SUPPORT)

kristof.teichel@ptb.de Tue, 01 June 2021 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <kristof.teichel@ptb.de>
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 AA0923A26EE for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.418
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG=0.377, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 zGO8GkFAH2m6 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.bs.ptb.de (mx1.bs.ptb.de [192.53.103.120]) (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 0559F3A26EC for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-hub.bs.ptb.de (smtpint01.bs.ptb.de [141.25.87.32]) by mx1.bs.ptb.de with ESMTP id 151KnCpa017616-151KnCpc017616 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 22:49:12 +0200
Received: from lotus.bs.ptb.de (lotus.bs.ptb.de [141.25.85.200]) by smtp-hub.bs.ptb.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 374E7B7483E for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 22:49:12 +0200 (CEST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sensitivity:
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
In-Reply-To:
References:
From: kristof.teichel@ptb.de
To: "NTP WG" <ntp@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2021 22:49:10 +0200
Message-ID: <OF7448B63E.194846B7-ONC12586E7.00725D69-C12586E7.00725D6A@ptb.de>
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/9_wK_flU0bfzuMgNNbY2dsIGOgU>
Subject: [Ntp] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: NTS4UPTP Rev 03 - Formal request for WG adoption (SUPPORT)
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 20:49:19 -0000

I was definitely on that thread, I just didn't register this as a PTP security proposal specifically.
It seems like this really would work just as well with GPS, or any GNSS, with any of the TESLA-secured modes (such as GPS Chimera and Galileo OS-NMA) instead of PTP. 
Or unsecured GNSS, or a radio clock like the DCF77 broadcast sender.
It also seems like it would work with something like Roughtime instead of NTS4NTP.

Personally, I believe this is a really important approach to follow up on.
I'm just not sure that it is worth the effort to focus on NTS+PTP specifically and market that as a security solution for PTP... but that gut feeling could definitely be off.
It just feels to me like it might be more interesting and fruitful (long-term) to make this into a generically applicable thing; I would be willing and able to contribute serious amounts of work to such an effort.


-----"ntp" <ntp-bounces@ietf.org> schrieb: -----
An: kristof.teichel@ptb.de
Von: "Daniel Franke"
Gesendet von: "ntp"
Datum: 31.05.2021 19:22
Kopie: "NTP WG" <ntp@ietf.org>
Betreff: Re: [Ntp] Antwort: Re: NTS4UPTP Rev 03 - Formal request for WG adoption (SUPPORT)

On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 11:28 AM <kristof.teichel@ptb.de> wrote:
> @daniel: you talk about a proposal of yours that is in competition with Heiko's draft, I believe.
> Now  this might be a dumb question, but where can I find that?

My proposal is what's described here; I believe you were on the
thread: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/-gQcQH915bf7NFTCjJ8LfVe8aa4/" rel="nofollow">https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/-gQcQH915bf7NFTCjJ8LfVe8aa4/

There's no associated I-D right now. I'd be happy to turn it into one
(with Informational intended status) if the WG thinks that would be
useful. If I do, I'd like to have a coauthor (someone who's worked
with IEEE1588 more closely than I have) to write the section on how to
process PTP packets once a plausible interval has been computed.

_______________________________________________
ntp mailing list
ntp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp