[ntpwg] WG: Re: draft-ietf-ntp-cms-for-nts-message
kristof.teichel@ptb.de Wed, 09 March 2016 13:01 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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C5A912D864 for <ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 05:01:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WxoP9DLCi8gF for <ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 05:01:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B11E612D5AA for <ntp-archives-ahFae6za@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 05:01:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A039C86DB72 for <ntp-archives-ahFae6za@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 13:01:34 +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 E27B886D4A6 for <ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 12:22:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx1.bs.ptb.de ([192.53.103.120]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kristof.teichel@ptb.de>) id 1add8c-000IXR-Q6 for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 12:22:59 +0000
Received: from smtp-hub.bs.ptb.de (smtpint01.bs.ptb.de [141.25.87.32]) by mx1.bs.ptb.de with ESMTP id u29CMleF010441-u29CMleH010441 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 13:22:47 +0100
Received: from rose.bs.ptb.de (rose.bs.ptb.de [141.25.85.201]) by smtp-hub.bs.ptb.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 217D036232 for <ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 13:22:47 +0100 (CET)
To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <OFC8F7CB89.90B878C5-ONC1257F71.0043F802-C1257F71.0044007B@ptb.de>
From: kristof.teichel@ptb.de
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 13:22:45 +0100
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 192.53.103.120
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: kristof.teichel@ptb.de
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org)
Subject: [ntpwg] WG: Re: draft-ietf-ntp-cms-for-nts-message
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8713163046121589380=="
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>
Russ from our point of view there is no real reason not to include the suggested changes. Apart from the CMS-draft we shall have to introduce additional changes at least to the draft-ietf-network-time-security in order to make non hmac MAC algorithm negotiable. We shall send you the proposed changes in the CMS draft and also include the proposed ASN.1 module additions. Dieter ------------------------------------- Dr. Dieter Sibold Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt Q.42 - Serversysteme und Datenhaltung QM-Verantwortlicher der Stelle IT Bundesallee 100 D-38116 Braunschweig Tel: +49-531-592-84 20 E-Mail: dieter.sibold@ptb.de Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> schrieb am 09.03.2016 00:34:50: > Von: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> > An: "Jim Schaad" <ietf@augustcellars.com> > Kopie: <draft-ietf-ntp-cms-for-nts-message@tools.ietf.org> > Datum: 09.03.2016 00:35 > Betreff: Re: draft-ietf-ntp-cms-for-nts-message > > Jim: > > That is a pretty simple change. I support it. > > Do the other authors of this document agree? > > Russ > > > On Mar 8, 2016, at 3:53 PM, Jim Schaad wrote: > > > This draft popped up for an early review of content types due to the fact > > that it is going to be released soon in OPENSSL. I would like to strongly > > push back on one of the features that is being placed in the structures for > > algorithm selection. > > > > You are fixing thing to only use HMAC by using the term hmacHashAlgos. What > > happens when NIST produces a MAC algorithm using the SHA-3 hash functions > > which does not require HMAC? Is there a reason for not making this field a > > set of MAC algorithm identifiers? RFC 4231 defines HMAC OIDs for all of the > > SHA-2 algorithms and RFC 3370 defines the same for SHA-1. > > > > Also, I experience a small irritation that you are not using authenticated > > encryption but that is somewhat understandable. > > > > Jim > > > > >
_______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg
- [ntpwg] WG: Re: draft-ietf-ntp-cms-for-nts-message kristof.teichel
- Re: [ntpwg] WG: Re: draft-ietf-ntp-cms-for-nts-me… Danny Mayer
- Re: [ntpwg] WG: Re: draft-ietf-ntp-cms-for-nts-me… Richard Welty