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

Miroslav Lichvar <> Wed, 02 June 2021 12:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B852C3A40B3 for <>; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 05:10:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.796
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.698, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GQeqb_k4lp-D for <>; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 05:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D56E03A40AF for <>; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 05:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=mimecast20190719; t=1622635820; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=K0HmfyotmE8mc7FYOoeFtdF+jt+fA9SB6TtjW7t/phQ=; b=ehMHsXo2SF2LUPYtcrDN1y9B/Ntiil29RpWTmUWptHLD6/NBv8vqSG9tJbYrRyqb0gov8p mNZXkdd1PLtV+00zxH0y84MjCsIpElUXogEcIDrtRLsMswY2MQHJO8X037bJEXeovZECrj XfEfE9v/V4J6dfvoeqq8tte6jqY6nhg=
Received: from ( []) (Using TLS) by with ESMTP id us-mta-396-tiVQjZFlO8KTjpMqfy3cUA-1; Wed, 02 Jun 2021 08:10:17 -0400
X-MC-Unique: tiVQjZFlO8KTjpMqfy3cUA-1
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51DCF8015F5; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 12:10:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 616BF5D764; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 12:10:14 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 14:10:12 +0200
From: Miroslav Lichvar <>
To: Heiko Gerstung <>
Cc: Doug Arnold <>, Heiko Gerstung <>, NTP WG <>, Daniel Franke <>
Message-ID: <YLd1JItdvVmSbSca@localhost>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <YLc3k1NM5sXnuY5N@localhost> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on
Authentication-Results:; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] NTS4UPTP Rev 03 - Formal request for WG adoption
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 12:10:24 -0000

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