Re: [Ntp] What happened to draft-ietf-ntp-data-minimization?
James <james.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 09 February 2021 16:57 UTC
Return-Path: <james.ietf@gmail.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 F04153A0FF1 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 08:57:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 2OKfUYHapyNc for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 08:57:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52b.google.com (mail-ed1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFD2A3A0C30 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 08:57:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id df22so24745947edb.1 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Feb 2021 08:57:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=iGfCznsJwg8UKibPlkyt9UPhSJCn4TgNoO8f67VkSSo=; b=nyW/HrRYSdTPQ8JTskQwl5fIw4OIaDYuZXotKvk8Eao0/kMVl6SCv5RVsJwUX/ahTC Sh49wC5Yo0Z/RSUmNhOnlUGWgzCT13pcLa6ozk/2HwA6sFoJlH7yLzW2+rzQtFQ3Pja3 ZevcaqAxJADBHdY5j4MTtIH4+MSJZVVDyGb+YrbJDL8+GlCvd3yT4S4PUCQeOu+OWiI0 cWqKgmMmvaKyxEdZ46Leqc4tBZGhu3T90uP7kFDlux0BifpT1xt7q8/LZzpLaCXChKQx iaB8lGyFuj0gN3k4a2Zi2vQJwf0bcvBIy42XR+exYoEtWR3Nm5Vp+3XdF9bJrqa/hCQl na7w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=iGfCznsJwg8UKibPlkyt9UPhSJCn4TgNoO8f67VkSSo=; b=JwmQhT1fraCGBWX4d34vz08sDBxywpMxekY7LoyhXwAxn8rV5sXfaQTH4PQ9FocqED q3bFjZEKE7U2ojc6B6zyQf5WOpqficzXx1z6eoycFG/1bjaArpGDcxPIZVS+IEWdwqtd 78XM+vOvxg66Rn714AvjQN0/LQXbV1hKRyl63HNWDrqUnzw1qkfXI29dDA0MDFvYx4Ar oY2GEnZhgVe2bat9QVFHA8kYzGHM9NfTgSq2l2nlmzlvKqADaLVdUUoLlvBrj+kOy44m xL/vwzH9HWJHsfeMxl6GOdjZuoYx5CE4xUi9CCqVjfDIkZzCZ4wv7ERSQzwTJAwVwLIQ vfGw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5322J+wmGva7rmmoxTn4+coE4zOUswyaQun0HZlp2YOyJmQfrIrQ AfQoo2lRAeem86+YkFjHxYVCGYb+ufg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzAFooaFUphtPnPF+7sa7X+PpVIQicrupQAituVrmafTbj0TlONYQp99hUA84IfF2S3/NNeQQ==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:c351:: with SMTP id j17mr9179776edr.261.1612889865191; Tue, 09 Feb 2021 08:57:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:984:65b0:2:6140:5cb5:51a0:b894? ([2001:984:65b0:2:6140:5cb5:51a0:b894]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b17sm11796369edv.56.2021.02.09.08.57.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Feb 2021 08:57:44 -0800 (PST)
To: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>, ntp@ietf.org
References: <20210209124221.78259406061@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
From: James <james.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0e5d1d65-68c0-9507-2fa2-352cfedc778d@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2021 17:57:37 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0
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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-AU
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/P3K7IVU6xrdVXQz7h4R6BJfUdzk>
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: Tue, 09 Feb 2021 16:57:49 -0000
I do think we should include it to the NTPv5 requirements, but not everything that is explicitly called out in the minimization draft may be applicable. I've made note of this [1]. - J 1: https://github.com/fiestajetsam/I-D/issues/8 On 09-02-2021 12:42, Hal Murray wrote: > Draft 04 from Mar 2019 has expired. > > I thought it was well done. Did it expire because people lost interest? If > so, should we add data-minimization to the NTPv5 list? > > 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? > > Has anybody gone through to see how many ideas from the data-minimization draft did/didn't make it into the BCP? > > I just happened to be interested in the transmit timestamp. I can't find any mention of transmit timestamp randomization in the BCP. > >