Re: [Ntp] Encrypted NTS cookie placeholder

Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> Mon, 03 February 2020 08:36 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 A12DD12086A for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 00:36:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w0W1s3eKHB66 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 00:36:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82447120103 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 00:36:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1580718963; 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: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=IASpgXVW69G+8zNuyxDu/EvLgJ0rZfIwmBoLn8tBdhs=; b=TdCZ89/CBPgv8EvnbmR0WXH3VGuoxZFSCNvMmHGYje18QF9HqToQfXon95qZ4dL/ARuiKZ HWxc6NLB8rB3U7v23TQYf1qg9xNpf4kzzwHwUsHZxAXEkGxgAhi22Hq8dUbTiiiYM2oliG k/5t2Of036N9E25tvrDz7YaRxSxVpfc=
Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-197-ir7VZsysO36FO8vy2sUciw-1; Mon, 03 Feb 2020 03:35:59 -0500
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6CEC8017CC; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 08:35:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (holly.tpb.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com [10.43.134.11]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D4001001281; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 08:35:56 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 09:35:50 +0100
From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
To: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
Cc: ntp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200203083550.GP20504@localhost>
References: <mlichvar@redhat.com> <20200129101442.GJ20504@localhost> <20200131020408.779ED40605C@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200131020408.779ED40605C@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22
X-MC-Unique: ir7VZsysO36FO8vy2sUciw-1
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/Epe1OuGqB_R8-2y8atiPpuFYWAQ>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Encrypted NTS cookie placeholder
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: Mon, 03 Feb 2020 08:36:08 -0000

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 06:04:08PM -0800, Hal Murray wrote:
> Would it be cleaner in the long run to pick one?  The idea is to simplify 
> things so they are more likely to work and simpler to test.

Yes, I think it would make things simpler if the draft said that the
placeholder SHOULD NOT be encrypted and MAY be ignored by the server
if encrypted. I don't see a point in encrypting this field.

The same may apply to future extension fields.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar