[Ntp] Antw: Re: Call for adoption: draft-schiff-ntp-chronos

>>> Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> schrieb am 03.09.2019 um 09:34 in
Nachricht
<CABUE3X=JNgijs78WUnDDexkBezKrR+Tkrf=YaWk3P8nUDOShrA@mail.gmail.com>:
> Hi Harlan,
> 
> Thanks for the feedback.
> 
>>I am opposed to the adoption of this draft as anything other than an
>>experimental proposal.
> 
> The difference between Informational and Experimental is a bit subtle,
> e.g., "Experimental" is usually defined for a limited period of time.
> However, Informational and Experimental are 'on the same level' in terms of
> importance.

Hi!

I don't know the IETF criteria, but I'd say "experimental" is "something ongoing, not finished with uncertain end" while "informational" is "something completed, not defining any standard or proposal of a standard".

Regards,
Ulrich

> 
> It is important to emphasize that the intended status of the current draft
> is not "Standards Track", and it is not intended to "update" RFC 5905.
> Chronos is defined as a client algorithm that does not affect NTP servers
> or non-Chronos clients, so there is no interoperability issues with
> existing implementations of NTP. That is why we see it as "Informational",
> as it does not change the protocol, and an implementation may choose to
> implement Chronos or not to implement it, without affecting other
> implementations.
> 
> Anyway, I believe this is not a big issue, and can probably be resolved
> with the WG chairs.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tal.
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 3:55 PM Harlan Stenn <stenn@nwtime.org> wrote:
> 
>> I am opposed to the adoption of this draft as anything other than an
>> experimental proposal.
>>
>> On 9/2/2019 5:49 AM, Neta R S wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Chronos has a provable security guarantees compared to the current
>> > NTPv4, even when facing MitM attacker.
>>
>> What *exactly* are these provable security guarantees?
>>
>> I suspect people are drawing incorrect inferences from "provable
>> security guarantees".
>>
>> H
>> --
>> > Thus, we suggested Chronos as NTPv4 watchdog and named the draft
>> > accordingly.
>> > We'll consider your comment regarding the draft's name, but in the worse
>> > case (where the MitM controls the client's gateway) I am not sure there
>> > is a solution.
>> >
>> > Regarding Daniel's and Kristof's comments, we agree that experimental
>> > might be a more appropriate intended status.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Neta
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 2:59 PM Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com 
>> > <mailto:mlichvar@redhat.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 05:37:10AM +0000, Karen O'Donoghue wrote:
>> >     > A Secure Selection and Filtering Mechanism for the Network Time
>> >     Protocol Version 4
>> >     > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schiff-ntp-chronos/ 
>> >     >
>> >     > Please reply with your opinion on whether or not the working group
>> >     should adopt this document including your willingness to review and
>> >     contribute..
>> >
>> >     I support adoption of this draft. I would like the group to consider
>> >     using a slightly different title and more careful use of the word
>> >     "secure" in the document. The algorithms improve resiliency against
>> >     some MITM attacks, but in the worst case security doesn't change.
>> >
>> >     --
>> >     Miroslav Lichvar
>> >
>> >     _______________________________________________
>> >     ntp mailing list
>> >     ntp@ietf.org <mailto:ntp@ietf.org>
>> >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp 
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ntp mailing list
>> > ntp@ietf.org 
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp 
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Harlan Stenn, Network Time Foundation
>> http://nwtime.org - be a Member!
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ntp mailing list
>> ntp@ietf.org 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp 
>>