[Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: NTPv5 modular architecture update

Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> Fri, 24 July 2020 07:00 UTC

Return-Path: <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
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 2AB583A0033 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 00:00:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 r-Ci--QMPk3S for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 00:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx3.uni-regensburg.de (mx3.uni-regensburg.de [194.94.157.148]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70B923A0029 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 00:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx3.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id C161A6000050 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:00:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.5.51]) by mx3.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6043600004D for <ntp@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:00:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:00:26 +0200
Message-Id: <5F1A8708020000A10003A3E0@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 18.2.1
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:00:24 +0200
From: Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
To: Dieter Sibold <dsibold.ietf@gmail.com>, doug.arnold@meinberg-usa.com
Cc: "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>
References: <DB8PR02MB5481C1EBE9C74F1EFD2E5372CF760@DB8PR02MB5481.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com> <64189FBD-C5F7-496E-9373-8ACE0EB8969E@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <64189FBD-C5F7-496E-9373-8ACE0EB8969E@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/WwVE9pWjhoGDVB8V8z3eNFdmSz0>
Subject: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: NTPv5 modular architecture update
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: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 07:00:34 -0000

>>> "Dieter Sibold" <dsibold.ietf@gmail.com> schrieb am 23.07.2020 um 23:02 in
Nachricht <64189FBD-C5F7-496E-9373-8ACE0EB8969E@gmail.com>:
> Hi Doug,
> 
> thanks for the proposed architecture.  From the first reading I have 
> following comments:
> 
> 1. As far as I remember Kristof and Daniel proposed to separate NTP into 
> three parts:
> 
> (i) the on-wire protocol
> (ii) selection and filter engine
> (iii) steering engine
> 
> This would allow to apply different clock control mechanism independent 
> of what selection and filter mechanism are applied.
> 
> 
> 2. The received packet information are basically NTPv4. I see following 
> issues:
> 
> (i) all 4 packet timestamps are not needed. See data minimization draft. 
> Especially, the client must not send t_1 anymore.

What about having an optional data minimization module?

> (ii) root delay and root dispersion are accumulated values. If 
> traceability is an strict requirement, data per hop would be more 
> valuable. Also, the computation of these values are done with respect to 
> NTPv4’s clock steering mechanism. If different clock steering 
> mechanisms are possible in NTPv5 root dispersion and delay may not be 
> good estimators for the desired numbers.
> 
> 
> 3. Security
> 
> Security should be the default. I would even propose to encrypt the 
> timing packets per default.

Authentication module and privacy module?

Regards,
Ulrich Windl