IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] Antw: Re: Antw: [EXT] Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> Mon, 31 August 2020 11:32 UTC

Return-Path: <mlichvar@redhat.com>
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 D27BA3A1290 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 04:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com
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 sWCNGJIu__tH for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 04:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 706EA3A128F for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 04:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1598873540; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ZZPwm/tKs4eD1hGIqFNxQZUqnbxo9de8Xb6U2QFGkcI=; b=dz2H9zuIOf71RZ5uaLKV/h7juCOo9x3qFXXYeYUSvCXEY8+2hxALQjz/8wGz4zBWR34rK8 fYNcq2SM8J9SWmizQ3i0EHWOss2q4/5il1iHFi+B9pkxo84hkqaUJxFFqaE2Dw9PjM6YR7 09d9DaVAeV0QDwEGc+kJOZXHoMXJoeg=
Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-446-cFF8A6F5O2mJzluNNnCo6A-1; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 07:32:16 -0400
X-MC-Unique: cFF8A6F5O2mJzluNNnCo6A-1
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 133BF1DDEC; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 11:32:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (holly.tpb.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com [10.43.134.11]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B78019CBA; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 11:32:11 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 13:32:10 +0200
From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
To: Harlan Stenn <stenn@nwtime.org>
Cc: Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>, "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>, Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>, odonoghue@isoc.org, kaduk@mit.edu, "ntp-chairs@ietf.org" <ntp-chairs@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20200831113210.GB4155245@localhost>
References: <20200829084626.C0F2E40605C@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net> <b262735b-19fb-21ba-891f-5de33ab2a488@nwtime.org> <5F4CC110020000A10003B016@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <20200831102453.GR2752765@localhost> <12a4db4f-108c-dedd-9c1d-421dc83b9b6a@nwtime.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <12a4db4f-108c-dedd-9c1d-421dc83b9b6a@nwtime.org>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11
Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=mlichvar@redhat.com
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/cma_t71vBPaku5GelVRadqSTGpg>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Antw: Re: Antw: [EXT] Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 11:32:23 -0000

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 04:16:29AM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> I was simply trying to point out that A->B could use any arbitrary keyID
> to authenticate those packets, as long as A and B agreed on the keyID,
> algorithm, and key, and B->A could also use an arbitrary keyID,
> algorithm, and key as long as there was an agreement on that.

Yes, I agree it's possible, but there doesn't seem to be a good reason
to do that. The additional configuration required to keep it secure is
impractical.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email