IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-22.txt> (Network Time Security for the Network Time Protocol) to Proposed Standard

Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> Wed, 19 February 2020 10:06 UTC

Return-Path: <hmurray@megapathdsl.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 17AB6120114 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 02:06:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.035
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.035 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no 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 lt-Q7L2u5TxK for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 02:06:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net [64.139.1.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 271A312010E for <ntp@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 02:06:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shuksan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7633240605C; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 02:06:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.3
To: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
cc: ntp@ietf.org, hmurray@megapathdsl.net
From: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> of "Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:31:38 +0100." <20200219093138.GQ13103@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 02:06:45 -0800
Message-Id: <20200219100645.7633240605C@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/hacjU9j1rF5L65o-JIGgrUgDCfI>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-22.txt> (Network Time Security for the Network Time Protocol) to Proposed Standard
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: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:06:47 -0000

mlichvar@redhat.com said:
> Yes, that would help. However, the NTS-KE port is different between the
> implementations, so there will still probably be a flag day. 

We can listen on both ports.  (4 if you count IPv6)  I think that avoids a 
flag day.

It might be possible to avoid a flag day on the extension numbers.  The idea 
is to accept either set, remember which arrived and use those for the reply.  
That's just complicated/ugly enough that I think I'd prefer a flag day.

-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email