IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: Splitting the Roughtime draft?

Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> Mon, 01 February 2021 07:29 UTC

Return-Path: <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.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 07E723A0853 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Jan 2021 23:29:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 kT5sAUiUdy6l for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Jan 2021 23:29:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx3.uni-regensburg.de (mx3.uni-regensburg.de [IPv6:2001:638:a05:137:165:0:4:4e79]) (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 B44333A083E for <ntp@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Jan 2021 23:29:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx3.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id E5BD86000052 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 08:29:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: from gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.5.51]) by mx3.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B782A6000051 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 08:29:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 08:29:04 +0100
Message-Id: <6017ADBF020000A10003E988@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 18.3.0
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2021 08:29:03 +0100
From: Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
To: "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>, Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
References: <20210131090607.ED116406061@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
In-Reply-To: <20210131090607.ED116406061@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/GBjXZoN3UBArzWO6LImDdedVIbg>
Subject: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: Splitting the Roughtime draft?
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, 01 Feb 2021 07:29:12 -0000

>>> Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> schrieb am 31.01.2021 um 10:06 in
Nachricht <20210131090607.ED116406061@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>:

> marcus@dansarie.se said:
>> I think we need to be very clear about the fact that all trust in
Roughtime
>> is rooted in the long‑term keys and that they are expected to be valid for
a
>> very long time indeed. 
> 
> How long is "very long"?

The "industry standard" seems to be 10 years for that, while "long" nowadays
is probably only two years...

> 
> I've been trying to figure out how to use Roughtime to get NTS off the 
> ground 
> when the time isn't known/trusted yet.  If it needs long term keys, is there

> 
> any advantage to long‑term Roughtime keys as compared to trusted
certificates 
> 
> with a long lifetime?
> 
> ‑‑ 
> These are my opinions.  I hate spam.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> ntp@ietf.org 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email