Re: [Ntp] NTPv5 draft

[James <[e-mail]>]

Given so many existing deployments end up running for many, many years 
the next version of NTP will also be around for a long time. Extensions 
and bolt-ons alone will not suffice in assuring the protocol's 
longevity, and that there is clearly a lot of work that must be done 
with the core of the protocol to address ossification, agility, as well 
as security. I would rather see NTPv5 solve these issues and take longer 
in its design than just deal with the "quick fixes", and I'm prepared to 
invest a significant portion of my own time and energy to support the 
efforts.

- J

On 08-12-2020 15:07, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 02:20:47PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote:
>>>     If you propose something, there should be a technical explanation
>>      provided.
>>
>> I'll claim that I already have, but to restate and scale it down a bit: all messages sent by a server must include authentication and tamper-proof. I do not believe anything less is acceptable these days.
>>
>> I am leaving it vague so that the WG can figure things out.
> As others explained, that is a difficult problem. A feeling about what
> is acceptable is not helping if you don't have a solution. NTS relying
> on TLS is the best thing we have now. If it has a 50% share of global
> NTP in 2030, I think it will be a great success. Currently it is 0%.
>
> We have identified NTPv4 issues that we want to have relatively
> quickly fixed in NTPv5. If someone figures out solution that will make
> authenticated NTP universally usable, it can be adopted by NTPv4, v5,
> or whatever version exists at the time. This effort should be separate
> from NTPv5.
>