IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: New Version Notification for draft-gruessing-ntp-ntpv5-requirements-03.txt

Danny Mayer <mayer@pdmconsulting.net> Mon, 18 October 2021 14:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mayer@pdmconsulting.net>
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 86DFC3A0DCB for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 07:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 f6prK839p-oJ for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 07:16:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chessie.everett.org (chessie.everett.org [IPv6:2001:470:1:205::234]) (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 2382A3A0DCA for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 07:16:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from newusers-MBP.fios-router.home (pool-108-26-179-179.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [108.26.179.179]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by chessie.everett.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4HXzTJ5syszMNQy; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 14:16:52 +0000 (UTC)
To: Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>, Rich Salz <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, james.ietf@gmail.com, doug.arnold@meinberg-usa.com
Cc: "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>
References: <163386015957.12424.6997038478834885480@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAO+dDx=6baLhf9LwSMvR1F0ieuLO6NXmExYLDvcCF2tgchHs8w@mail.gmail.com> <DB8PR02MB5772AC97BFE2D7C1139EFDC0CFB89@DB8PR02MB5772.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com> <E469D9A7-7445-49D9-A8A2-82BA7BF1FA27@gmail.com> <1985d4ff-d4a9-5ca3-e1b8-3d5f9a2fcc4b@pdmconsulting.net> <05E3CA12-9828-4EF6-8C47-20A7D07788AA@akamai.com> <fda9f648-5f63-e33d-6604-42db3a83a073@pdmconsulting.net> <616D0C40020000A100044871@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
From: Danny Mayer <mayer@pdmconsulting.net>
Message-ID: <d5585147-4a76-3869-03c9-81675d3bba65@pdmconsulting.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 10:16:52 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <616D0C40020000A100044871@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/fdCVRT8-M8K58sHM_x2Pq_bSba4>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: New Version Notification for draft-gruessing-ntp-ntpv5-requirements-03.txt
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Time Protocol <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, 18 Oct 2021 14:17:00 -0000

On 10/18/21 1:55 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>
>> The reason to do encryption is to make the contents confidential so
>> noone else can know what the contents are. There's nothing in the NTP
>> packet that needs to be hidden from prying eyes. The DNS issue is again
>> not a matter of confidentiality. As a former DNS Developer I can tell
>> you that the issue resolved with DNSSEC was to prevent spoofing. The DNS
>> packet is NOT encrypted, it just has content to prevent spoofing. The
>> Kaminsky attack shows an example of that.
> Maybe you missed DNSCrypt, DNS-over-Quic (DoQ) and DNS-over-HTTPS
> (DoH).
>
No I didn't. These efforts were about protecting users from ISP's, 
Government agencies, etc. knowing what was being requested. There's 
nothing secret about a timestamp. You really need to concentrate on the 
content of the packet and decide which parts, if any, need to be 
concealed from prying eyes. I have seen nothing so far that requires 
concealment. Please offer actual use cases of what needs to be concealed 
and why.

Danny

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email