IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ntpwg] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ntp-network-time-security-12.txt and draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-03.txt

Danny Mayer <mayer@ntp.org> Wed, 23 December 2015 15:14 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 A4F031A01D8 for <ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 07:14:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 AbWQP0LsqxXX for <ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 07:14:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D2761A01F6 for <ntp-archives-ahFae6za@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 07:14:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DA4C86DB2E for <ntp-archives-ahFae6za@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:14:48 +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 1C67C86DAD8; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 14:45:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [198.22.153.36] (helo=[10.2.64.200]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <mayer@ntp.org>) id 1aBkfb-000JtO-0f; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 14:45:40 +0000
References: <56785CE5.6080102@ntp.org> <OFDECED69B.3FA71F92-ONC1257F22.0063AA4C-C1257F22.006401FE@ptb.de> <OF3D6DD6FA.812C6BCC-ONC1257F22.00775A28-C1257F22.00775A29@ptb.de> <567877FB.7030608@ntp.org> <OF0AC1CCBA.2E240196-ONC1257F23.00313FBA-C1257F23.0033AC80@ptb.de> <5679639D.4010906@nwtime.org> <56799A3E.3020506@ntp.org> <OFB626AB50.8283A0AC-ONC1257F24.002B274D-C1257F24.002CE30C@ptb.de>
To: dieter.sibold@ptb.de
From: Danny Mayer <mayer@ntp.org>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Organization: NTP
Message-ID: <567AB392.8040008@ntp.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 09:45:38 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <OFB626AB50.8283A0AC-ONC1257F24.002B274D-C1257F24.002CE30C@ptb.de>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.22.153.36
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rwelty@nwtime.org, ntpwg-bounces+dieter.sibold=ptb.de@lists.ntp.org, ntpwg@lists.ntp.org, dieter.sibold@ptb.de
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mayer@ntp.org
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org)
Subject: Re: [ntpwg] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ntp-network-time-security-12.txt and draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-03.txt
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>
Reply-To: mayer@ntp.org
Cc: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org, ntpwg <ntpwg-bounces+dieter.sibold=ptb.de@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 12/23/2015 3:10 AM, dieter.sibold@ptb.de wrote:
> Danny, I understand your point. Yes the MAC extension field in 6.1.4.3
> has to be described more clearly. But why should we need a special draft
> for a MAC extension field. There is already the draft
> "draft-ietf-ntp-extension-field" which should me general enough for
> additional new extension fields.
> 

I know, I coauthored that draft with Tal Mizrahi. The problem is that a
MAC extension field needs to be specified so that it can replace the
existing MAC field. I'm also considering allowing for multiple MAC
extension fields in a single packet so that one MAC hashing algorithm
can be retired if found to be compromisable without disrupting NTP
infrastructure and existing implementations. It also needs some
discussion on usage by responding packets and which to use.

Danny

_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email