Re: [Ntp] NTS4UPTP Rev 03 - Formal request for WG adoption

[Miroslav Lichvar <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:21:45PM +0200, Heiko Gerstung wrote:
> I strongly disagree with this paragraph. Unicast PTP is unlike NTP in every aspect, even multicast PTP is also not like NTP broadcast mode. 
> The PTP folks want security for PTP and our proposal delivers that for unicast PTP. Introducing a stateless mode for unicast PTP would certainly something to look at, but why should we do this if my draft protects unicast PTP as-is, without a requirement to change another standard? 

Well, some people seem to be asking for as much of NTS4NTP as
possible. I suggested a solution to get that and I understand it may
not be very practical.

Yes, your draft uses some elements from NTS4NTP, but it's still very
different and I'm not sure if it is worth the extra complexity if a
simpler solution using an already existing security protocol could
provide the same security.

I'm not against having an NTS4UPTP draft in general. I just don't want
it to reuse parts of NTS4NTP only to have an "NTS" stamp on it. There
should be some technical reasons behind it. Maybe there are. I think
it's up to the authors to defend it.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar