Re: [ntpwg] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ntp-network-time-security-12.txt and draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-03.txt

Harlan Stenn <stenn@ntp.org> Wed, 23 December 2015 01:35 UTC

Return-Path: <ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E92471B29B6 for <ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:35:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 ufm0dMw0SdzS for <ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:35:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 880791AD2EE for <ntp-archives-ahFae6za@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:35:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C8CF86DB32 for <ntp-archives-ahFae6za@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 01:35:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
Received: from stenn.ntp.org (stenn.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::30]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94E7E86DAA5 for <ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 01:35:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [::1] (helo=stenn.ntp.org) by stenn.ntp.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <stenn@stenn.ntp.org>) id 1aBYIZ-000D0R-7I; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 01:33:03 +0000
From: Harlan Stenn <stenn@ntp.org>
To: dieter.sibold@ptb.de
In-reply-to: <OF0AC1CCBA.2E240196-ONC1257F23.00313FBA-C1257F23.0033AC80@ptb.de>
References: <56785CE5.6080102@ntp.org> <OFDECED69B.3FA71F92-ONC1257F22.0063AA4C-C1257F22.006401FE@ptb.de> <OF3D6DD6FA.812C6BCC-ONC1257F22.00775A28-C1257F22.00775A29@ptb.de> <567877FB.7030608@ntp.org> <OF0AC1CCBA.2E240196-ONC1257F23.00313FBA-C1257F23.0033AC80@ptb.de>
Comments: In-reply-to dieter.sibold@ptb.de message dated "Tue, 22 Dec 2015 10:24:25 +0100."
X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4.2; nmh 1.6; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 24)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 1.8)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 01:33:03 +0000
Message-Id: <E1aBYIZ-000D0R-7I@stenn.ntp.org>
Subject: Re: [ntpwg] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ntp-network-time-security-12.txt and draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-03.txt
X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol <ntpwg.lists.ntp.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ntp.org/options/ntpwg>, <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ntp.org/pipermail/ntpwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg>, <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org
Sender: ntpwg <ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org>

dieter.sibold@ptb.de writes:
> You can see it in the draft "draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-03". There 
> it is mentioned e.g. in sect. 6.1.3.2. The idea is that NTS for NTP 
> defines one additional extension field (see section IANA registration) and 
> that all NTS-messages are using this extension field. The different NTS 
> message types are distinguished by their respective OID (see the next 
> version of the draft "draft-ietf-ntp-cms-for-nts-message"). This also is 
> true for the MAC. Kristof please correct me if I'm wrong. The field type 
> of the NTS extension field is not registered yet. This has to be done as 
> soon as possible. This was also discussed with the NTF.
> 
> Dieter

I gather we want an extension field for NTS and we want an extension
field for the message authenticator.

DLM says the original expectation and plan was for mulitple extension
fields to be allowed, and that the MAC, if present, would always be the
last thing in the packet.

If a new extention field was added to the packet that process should
remove any previous MAC field and add a new one to the end of the packet.

I'm curious if there is new information available that would show good
reason why we should reconsider this.

H
_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg