IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] [IANA-Port-Experts] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-ntp-alternative-port-02

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Tue, 07 December 2021 19:41 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.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 E2F133A183C; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 11:41:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.317
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.317 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.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 yJEgssPfWnWb; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 11:41:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-1.web-hosting.com (server217-1.web-hosting.com [198.54.114.226]) (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 B249C3A0D39; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 11:41:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Sender: Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender :Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=H/vaEaApVnnrOZj8dJntI2/RoB/eO70qnA5FfniRR8I=; b=jJEaMPU4HX5sgeL6JkLsHIt08S MfBrnXkS9mJhxDnkj1vgzfjlTDaohKAnBvqLziHzbqZTI4MUKKaCUWss1dPtFv3y+4mlnI1OUmCvy btDZjS+Otaz/hfSlUyAT3m/N5vSUabhuL5QaxSkvsjGEubRJcLKH6eT8jE6jre5QFzblieuOy6/fd ovTs17HxCuMYEdxpXGtkgg6ko7u1SF2uUpCO5IPy0AYKr41DNkZTHMMzg5n6cAhJSld+INSk5jVTY 3mGuUYeXzuGiZniTcuIvULdg5q50HfLM+XcN+tADTwShvthpAsAlOvmAg+dGKtTRxhS4ak5IVMcov t71mb4VQ==;
Received: from cpe-172-114-237-88.socal.res.rr.com ([172.114.237.88]:57950 helo=smtpclient.apple) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1mugL8-008q7a-O8; Tue, 07 Dec 2021 14:41:31 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-51B73B61-A29D-4CFB-8CBE-04D7B9B692EB"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <D4A9AB30-583A-478D-A81A-22F81220FE6D@akamai.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2021 11:41:23 -0800
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ntp-alternative-port.all@ietf.org, tsv-art <tsv-art@ietf.org>, ntp@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org, iana-port-experts@icann.org
Message-Id: <2AE6E914-6540-4FD2-BB14-69BDAD52AEA2@strayalpha.com>
References: <D4A9AB30-583A-478D-A81A-22F81220FE6D@akamai.com>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (19B81)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/JkL5TNn6waDlHE5-b0OEeP3SAhA>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] [IANA-Port-Experts] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-ntp-alternative-port-02
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Time Protocol <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: Tue, 07 Dec 2021 19:41:37 -0000

Then please Help us understand a bigger picture that doesn’t end with endless “new port-to-fix-bad-deployments” assignments.

That’s the bigger picture here. 

Joe

> On Dec 7, 2021, at 10:58 AM, Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> In the case here, NTP already supports in-band security negotiation - it is a non-protocol network configuration that is getting in the way. Using another port is a lazy (and unwarranted) way to resolve that problem.
>  
> I find this point of view compelling.  It’s a good example of an small focused group not necessarily seeing the larger picture.
> _______________________________________________
> Tsv-art mailing list
> Tsv-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email