IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ntpwg] WG: Re: draft-ietf-ntp-cms-for-nts-message

Richard Welty <rwelty@averillpark.net> Thu, 10 March 2016 04:08 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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 095C212DD75 for <ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 20:08:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 g2Hzp3UxLSUD for <ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 20:08:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ADAA12DD68 for <ntp-archives-ahFae6za@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 20:08:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CAB586DBAC for <ntp-archives-ahFae6za@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 04:08:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9771A86D9BE for <ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 19:22:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from krusty-motorsports.com ([192.94.170.8]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <rweltyap@krusty-motorsports.com>) id 1adjgb-0000Za-TT for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 19:22:31 +0000
Received: from dyn-169-226-93-130.wireless.albany.edu ([169.226.93.130]) by krusty-motorsports.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from <rweltyap@krusty-motorsports.com>) id 1adjgY-0003Gr-W8 for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 14:22:19 -0500
To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
References: <OFC8F7CB89.90B878C5-ONC1257F71.0043F802-C1257F71.0044007B@ptb.de> <56E061E5.3090407@ntp.org>
From: Richard Welty <rwelty@averillpark.net>
Message-ID: <56E077E7.7070604@averillpark.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 14:22:15 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56E061E5.3090407@ntp.org>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 192.94.170.8
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: rweltyap@krusty-motorsports.com
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 04:07:58 +0000
Subject: Re: [ntpwg] WG: Re: draft-ietf-ntp-cms-for-nts-message
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5724996424787883730=="
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>

On 3/9/16 12:48 PM, Danny Mayer wrote:
> My possibly erroneous assumption was that the protocol will include an
> identifier to indicate which hashing algorithm to use for the digest and
> that it be configurable outside the protocol. There shouldn't be any
> limits on those algorithms especially as new ones become available on a
> regular basis and it's better not to bake any particular flavour into
> the protocol. Was I wrong?
>
my plan for the reference implementation was to enforce the basic
requirement of the drafts (nothing weaker than sha-256) and otherwise
allow access to whatever OpenSSL provides. the ntp config file will
contain a list of what algorithms a particular ntp peer wishes to support,
with a sensible set of defaults.
the ordering of this list on the server end will determine algorithm
priority.

richard

-- 
rwelty@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search



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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email