[Ntp] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: NTS4UPTP Rev 03 - Formal request for WG adoption (SUPPORT)
kristof.teichel@ptb.de Tue, 01 June 2021 21:14 UTC
Return-Path: <kristof.teichel@ptb.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 8A3083A27A0 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 14:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.418
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG=0.377, HTML_NONELEMENT_30_40=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 Udr9skS5Y3h6 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 14:14:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.bs.ptb.de (mx1.bs.ptb.de [192.53.103.120]) (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 EE8EE3A279A for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 14:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-hub.bs.ptb.de (smtpint01.bs.ptb.de [141.25.87.32]) by mx1.bs.ptb.de with ESMTP id 151LE0xe019450-151LE0xg019450 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 1 Jun 2021 23:14:00 +0200
Received: from lotus.bs.ptb.de (lotus.bs.ptb.de [141.25.85.200]) by smtp-hub.bs.ptb.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5626B74888; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 23:14:00 +0200 (CEST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sensitivity:
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
In-Reply-To: <CAJm83bBrEx85KMuJ4k6vJrX7HQ9mwgdbwexYbsO8b7OwkOx-Gg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJm83bBrEx85KMuJ4k6vJrX7HQ9mwgdbwexYbsO8b7OwkOx-Gg@mail.gmail.com>, <OF7448B63E.194846B7-ONC12586E7.00725D69-C12586E7.00725D6A@ptb.de>
From: kristof.teichel@ptb.de
To: Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com>
Cc: NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2021 23:13:59 +0200
Message-ID: <OFE965825E.9402AA1E-ONC12586E7.0074A309-C12586E7.0074A30B@ptb.de>
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/NObrvp3kXCHmovsdWTRQh27ozP0>
Subject: [Ntp] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: NTS4UPTP Rev 03 - Formal request for WG adoption (SUPPORT)
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: Tue, 01 Jun 2021 21:14:08 -0000
Von: "Daniel Franke"
Gesendet von: "ntp"
Datum: 01.06.2021 22:51
Kopie: "NTP WG" <ntp@ietf.org>
Betreff: Re: [Ntp] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: NTS4UPTP Rev 03 - Formal request for WG adoption (SUPPORT)
> I was definitely on that thread, I just didn't register this as a PTP security proposal specifically.
> It seems like this really would work just as well with GPS, or any GNSS, with any of the TESLA-secured modes (such as GPS Chimera and Galileo OS-NMA) instead of PTP.
> Or unsecured GNSS, or a radio clock like the DCF77 broadcast sender.
> It also seems like it would work with something like Roughtime instead of NTS4NTP.
>
> Personally, I believe this is a really important approach to follow up on.
> I'm just not sure that it is worth the effort to focus on NTS+PTP specifically and market that as a security solution for PTP... but that gut feeling could definitely be off.
> It just feels to me like it might be more interesting and fruitful (long-term) to make this into a generically applicable thing; I would be willing and able to contribute serious amounts of work to such an effort.
You're correct, the general approach of using an imprecise, secure
time source to clamp a precise, insecure one can be applied to many
combinations of the two. But the details of how to commensurate the
two timescales and compute intervals of plausibility would be
different so I'd rather just focus on one particular combination and
note the broader applicability in passing.
Do you want to be my co-author on this? I'll write the first draft.
You should rewrite the section that'll be heavy on IEEE1588-specific
details because I'll probably do a mediocre job with that, and then
you'd be welcome to expand it to cover any additional topics you think
are worth including.
_______________________________________________
ntp mailing list
ntp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
- [Ntp] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: NTS4UPTP Rev 03 -… kristof.teichel
- Re: [Ntp] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: NTS4UPTP Rev … Daniel Franke
- [Ntp] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: NTS4… kristof.teichel
- Re: [Ntp] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: NTS4UPTP Rev … Daniel Franke
- [Ntp] NSCoPE kristof.teichel