[Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: NTPv5 draft

>>> "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org> schrieb am 01.12.2020 um
00:44
in Nachricht <DCB6C97C-3CC3-4A75-B633-2A35E17573C3@akamai.com>:
>>     I think that there is a possibility of a non safety‑critical closed 
> network application of ntp that does not need security.
> 
> I am strongly opposed to this for three and a half reasons:
> 1. The use‑case is not known, so we should assume that NTPv4 is good
enough.
> 1.5 If this is not the case, those who need this need to make the argument 
> to this WG.
> 2. Security should no longer be optional for IETF protocols.
> 3. "Closed network" is increasingly unlikely; we're seeing more things "in 
> the cloud" for example.

"more" isn't all: I know some "devices" that actually consist of several
computers in one cabinet taling to each other via a network you cannot see or
reach from the outside. That could be a candidate where no extra security is
needed. Also see my earlier message on the subject.

Regards,
Ulrich

> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> ntp@ietf.org 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp 