Re: [Ntp] Antw: Re: [EXT] Danny's Review (was Re: draft‑ietf‑ntp‑roughtime‑05: tag change makes implementation more complex)

[Danny Mayer <[e-mail]>]

On 10/5/21 4:29 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>>>> Watson Ladd <[e-mail]> schrieb am 05.10.2021 um 04:16 in
> For completeness the used/expected hash algorithm could indicated by a 
> tag
>>> even in this version, maybe providing a mechanism how to allow/require
>>> different algorithms in a later version.
>>> That design would avoid some bad compatibility designs in a later version
>>> (like NTP's "famous" extension fields).
>> I'm not sure why the hash function is so worthy of singling out here,
>> perhaps you can explain more. The intention is every version has its
>> own single signature algorithm.
> If that is part of the design, say so. However having to start a new
> incompatible protocol version just to replace a hash algorithm is bad design
> IMHO.
> Imagine SSL/TLS had a new or different version for every hash algorithm that
> is supported.
>
That was my point. You can put an ID into the protocol to reference the 
hashing algorithm used which references an ID maintained by IANA. That 
way the protocol doesn't change if you need to replace the protocol. 
It's okay to reference a minimum required protocol in the document 
provided that can be updated if the algorithm becomes compromised. I'm 
sure you can find a list of supported hashing algorithms on IANA.

Danny