Re: [Ntp] NTS4UPTP Rev 03 - Formal request for WG adoption

Miroslav Lichvar <> Wed, 02 June 2021 07:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89B3A3A399C for <>; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 00:49:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.796
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.698, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uUmxkTMrmeik for <>; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 00:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3779D3A399D for <>; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 00:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=mimecast20190719; t=1622620141; 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=hrhF70rmf29czCAcfKnrCKVCoJFe9Z1aeuTvqBUPYM4=; b=FTwzNQg80KPu1Hgm5BOP6LIiqFNQLvNwc3IPBGLaiqadVNbmgPTnovw8Ztf8VIbXPoCNCu YAewt8VYlAborKrTjADE6ZOy/qrYEKRDWXgz81NfSk8nCGP4MvTMFDGXIgoPx8ultJn9em QdV16ayNu6ZbYGDANhCcNWIDN77y8H4=
Received: from ( []) (Using TLS) by with ESMTP id us-mta-495-jkoUWmhNPZWRkQnKsKxpNQ-1; Wed, 02 Jun 2021 03:47:36 -0400
X-MC-Unique: jkoUWmhNPZWRkQnKsKxpNQ-1
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D066C50208; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 07:47:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01A655C230; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 07:47:32 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 09:47:31 +0200
From: Miroslav Lichvar <>
To: Doug Arnold <>
Cc: Daniel Franke <>, Heiko Gerstung <>, NTP WG <>
Message-ID: <YLc3k1NM5sXnuY5N@localhost>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on
Authentication-Results:; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] NTS4UPTP Rev 03 - Formal request for WG adoption
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 07:49:05 -0000

On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 12:27:24AM +0000, Doug Arnold wrote:
> Sorry about the dangling PTP is at the end.  I hit send accidently,
> I was going to say that PTP is … going to have a security mechanism, because industry is making it a requirement.  It would be easiest for implementers and network operators if it was as much like NTS as possible.  The NTP working group is the group in the best position to help solve this problem because you have just been through it for NTP, and because of the security expertise in the IETF.

The trouble is that PTP is very different from NTP. It's more like the
NTP broadcast mode, which the WG tried to cover in NTP, but ultimately
gave up. If the PTP folks want all of the security of NTS4NTP, they
need to add an NTP-like mode to PTP. A stateless mode where an event
message has an event response. You know, something like the Sync
Monitor extension specified by Meinberg.

Miroslav Lichvar