IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ntpwg] NTS: The question of CMS vs. (D)TLS

dieter.sibold@ptb.de Wed, 01 July 2015 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26F391A8965 for <ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 06:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 5-S265Og2iVm for <ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 06:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE47B1A8960 for <ntp-archives-ahFae6za@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 06:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA17786DAFF for <ntp-archives-ahFae6za@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 13:56:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C562386D643; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 13:56:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx1.bs.ptb.de ([192.53.103.106]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <dieter.sibold@ptb.de>) id 1ZAIUi-0008C5-HF; Wed, 01 Jul 2015 13:56:17 +0000
Received: from mx1.bs.ptb.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id EB24FD8C4EF; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 15:55:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rose.bs.ptb.de (rose.bs.ptb.de [141.25.85.201]) by mx1.bs.ptb.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBDB9D8C52B; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 15:55:38 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <55718CB8.7040607@redhat.com>
References: <OF782BF2A6.6279FB98-ONC1257E5B.003389DB-C1257E5B.0036C269@ptb.de> <55718CB8.7040607@redhat.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: 88326981:BC799EB0-C1257E75:004B8AC4; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: IBM Notes Release 9.0.1FP3 January 12, 2015
Message-ID: <OF88326981.BC799EB0-ONC1257E75.004B8AC4-C1257E75.004C806A@ptb.de>
From: dieter.sibold@ptb.de
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 15:55:35 +0200
X-MIMETrack: S/MIME Sign by eclipse on Dieter Sibold/PTB(Release 9.0.1FP3|January 12, 2015) at 01.07.2015 15:55:36, Serialize by eclipse on Dieter Sibold/PTB(Release 9.0.1FP3|January 12, 2015) at 01.07.2015 15:55:36, Serialize complete at 01.07.2015 15:55:36, Itemize by eclipse on Dieter Sibold/PTB(Release 9.0.1FP3|January 12, 2015) at 01.07.2015 15:55:37, S/MIME Sign complete at 01.07.2015 15:55:37, Serialize by Router on ROSE/PTB(Release 9.0.1FP4|June 07, 2015) at 07/01/2015 15:55:38, Serialize complete at 07/01/2015 15:55:38
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 192.53.103.106
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg-bounces+dieter.sibold=ptb.de@lists.ntp.org, ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: dieter.sibold@ptb.de
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org)
Subject: Re: [ntpwg] NTS: The question of CMS vs. (D)TLS
X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol <ntpwg.lists.ntp.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ntp.org/options/ntpwg>, <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ntp.org/pipermail/ntpwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg>, <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org, ntpwg <ntpwg-bounces+dieter.sibold=ptb.de@lists.ntp.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0464429840640233016=="
Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org
Sender: ntpwg <ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org>

Hi Florian,

we want to prepare the language for the mentioned between the negotiation 
and post-negotiation phases. Do we understand you correctly that your 
proposed opaque blob session ticket is important for the negotiation and 
not for the post-negotiation phase?

Dieter 







From:   Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
To:     kristof.teichel@ptb.de
Cc:     ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
Date:   05.06.2015 14:28
Subject:        Re: [ntpwg] NTS: The question of CMS vs. (D)TLS
Sent by:        "ntpwg" <ntpwg-bounces+dieter.sibold=ptb.de@lists.ntp.org>



On 06/05/2015 11:58 AM, kristof.teichel@ptb.de wrote:

> (2) Draft for utilization of NTS for NTP 
> (draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp)
> - In this draft, we intend to specify that for bootstrapping, an 
> implementation MUST support the use of the CMS-based message exchanges, 
as 
> described in the informational appendix mentioned above.
> - We will further specify that an implementation MAY also support other 
> methods for bootstrapping, for example exchanging the necessary data via 

> DTLS or DANE. Any such method needs to fulfill the requirements given in 

> the main draft.

This seems okay to me, as long as there is a clean separation between
the negotiation and post-negotation phase, and the session ticket is
treated as an opaque blob (of variable length).  I would have to see the
actual language to be sure.

-- 
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security
_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg



_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email