Re: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: Quick review of WGLC for status change for draft‑ietf‑ntp‑update‑registries

[Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]>]

On 8/9/2022 1:02 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 06:48:28PM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote:
>> On 8/8/2022 5:58 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
>>> If you allow short extension fields, you will not be able to detect
>>> whether a request contains an unknown extension field or an Autokey
>>> MAC using an old cookie. The protocol may be able recover, but that's
>>> not how things should be done.
>>>
>>> Here is an example:
>>>
>>> 04 1b 00 14 cc e2 c8 47 71 95 79 64 c4 71 e8 72 7e bf fb cd
>>>
>>> Which of the two is it?
>>>
>>
>> More context, please.
>>
>> What is that set of bytes?
> 
> It's the UDP data following the NTP header.

I don't do this stuff in my head as well as I used to.

Is there a symmetric key for keyID 1051?  If so, what hash algorithm was 
used?

I'm not seeing that it's a valid EF (either V1 or V2).

But again, I don't do these things in my head as well as I used to.

-- 
Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]>
http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member!