IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Ntp] Antw: Re: [tsvwg] Antw: [EXT] Re: [Tsv‑art] Tsvart early review of draft‑ietf‑ntp‑alternative‑port‑02

Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> Tue, 07 December 2021 07:32 UTC

Return-Path: <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
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 499C93A120D; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 23:32:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 dSAWQHQfHQ4Y; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 23:32:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.uni-regensburg.de (mx1.uni-regensburg.de [IPv6:2001:638:a05:137:165:0:3:bdf7]) (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 D45F73A120C; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 23:32:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 5347A6000054; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 08:32:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.5.51]) by mx1.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF2966000050; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 08:32:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 07 Dec 2021 08:32:05 +0100
Message-Id: <61AF0DF3020000A1000461AB@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 18.3.1
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2021 08:32:03 +0100
From: Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@akamai.com>, lear@lear.ch, mlichvar@redhat.com
Cc: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com, iana-port-experts@icann.org, draft-ietf-ntp-alternative-port.all@ietf.org, "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>, tsv-art@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org, halmurray@sonic.net, touch@strayalpha.com
References: <20211204231206.A534228C17A@107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net> <61ADC2E6020000A100046157@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <b694a433-8555-0eed-e38f-c15c0e2a6e98@lear.ch> <3EBE312A-6403-48EF-95E0-E6F9FE06A470@akamai.com> <Ya4rcGGPWeV5wG0U@localhost> <aec06b8a-3beb-473f-0185-d4c1f93791f0@lear.ch>
In-Reply-To: <aec06b8a-3beb-473f-0185-d4c1f93791f0@lear.ch>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/mbNl3KUGQjBcNFdg2p-cx1-nRBc>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 07 Dec 2021 04:39:21 -0800
Subject: [Ntp] Antw: Re: [tsvwg] Antw: [EXT] Re: [Tsv‑art] Tsvart early review of draft‑ietf‑ntp‑alternative‑port‑02
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: Tue, 07 Dec 2021 07:32:22 -0000

>>> Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> schrieb am 06.12.2021 um 17:38 in Nachricht
<aec06b8a-3beb-473f-0185-d4c1f93791f0@lear.ch>:
> Would you merge your authentication method into a single service or 
> would you keep it separate?
> 
> Eliot
> 
> On 06.12.21 16:25, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 02:53:33PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote:
>>>>     Had neither NTP nor NTS existed, and you were requesting a new port for
>>>      a secure time protocol, would you have designed it identically?
>>>
>>> Almost definitely not.  NTS is wrapped around into the quirks of NTP.
>> Which quirks of NTP? That it is stateless, or that it is UDP?
>>
>> I doubt any of that would change if a new protocol was designed from
>> scratch. At least, I'd expect someone to propose the problem to be
>> fixed in NTPv5.
>>


Hi!

Actually I think ist the fatal triple:
(dump protocol (NTP), dumb firewall, dumb administrator)

Remove one of the three and things become better. ;-)

Regards,
Ulrich

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email