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

[[e-mail]]

So, the intention of the MAC extension field is to replace the current MAC 
field? And it will support the current pre-shared key authentication 
scheme?

Dieter

-------------------------------------
Dr. Dieter Sibold
Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt
Q.42 - Serversysteme und Datenhaltung
QM-Verantwortlicher der Stelle IT
Bundesallee 100 
D-38116 Braunschweig
Tel:    [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]




Von:    Danny Mayer <[e-mail]>
An:     [e-mail]
Kopie:  [e-mail], ntpwg 
<ntpwg-bounces+dieter.sibold=[e-mail]>, Richard Welty 
<[e-mail]>
Datum:  23.12.2015 15:45
Betreff:        Re: [ntpwg] New Version Notification for 
draft-ietf-ntp-network-time-security-12.txt and 
draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-03.txt



On 12/23/2015 3:10 AM, [e-mail] 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
[e-mail]
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg