Re: [Ntp] What happened to draft-ietf-ntp-data-minimization?
Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 11 February 2021 17:53 UTC
Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 76D963A1808 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 09:53:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, 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 JEMyuYx6HbdK for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 09:53:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 686343A1809 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 09:53:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:4181:442:5061:d73f] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:4181:442:5061:d73f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1EAE62809AE; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 17:53:14 +0000 (UTC)
To: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>, ntp@ietf.org
References: <20210209124221.78259406061@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <11c5af7d-b8bd-aee3-f3b8-c3f10d8cc19f@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 14:44:47 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210209124221.78259406061@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/Oceby0vwvoHuUxlftWUjUSuIoYY>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] What happened to draft-ietf-ntp-data-minimization?
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: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 17:53:27 -0000
On 9/2/21 09:42, Hal Murray wrote: > > Draft 04 from Mar 2019 has expired. > > I thought it was well done. Did it expire because people lost interest? FWIW, I believe it is very useful, and would like to see it progressed. > If > so, should we add data-minimization to the NTPv5 list? Yeo! > Section 5.1 in RFC 8633, BCP, July 2019, is on Minimizing Information Leakage > > Were people expecting the BCP to pick up the ideas from the data-minimization > draft? Not sure. But what didn't make into RFC8633 should probably be progressed stand-alone. -- for instance, there are implementations (e.g. openbsd's) that have been doing data minimization for a while. I guess some things were probably not picked up because they were a change to the protocol spec, rather than a implementations making use of the leeway they had? Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492