IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] NTPv5 draft

Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> Mon, 07 December 2020 21:31 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 4CCF33A0972 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:31:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.036
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, PDS_RDNS_DYNAMIC_FP=0.001, 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 AlKxe70uHAA3 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:31:09 -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 05F163A0B2E for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:31:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shuksan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09CDC40605C; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:31:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.3
To: James <james.ietf@gmail.com>
cc: ntp@ietf.org, hmurray@megapathdsl.net
From: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from James <james.ietf@gmail.com> of "Mon, 07 Dec 2020 17:57:28 +0100." <27e7bc98-07c7-8130-d0a4-b2d3b5617ad8@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 13:31:03 -0800
Message-Id: <20201207213104.09CDC40605C@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/p9GUTMiqzy_Gy1CekfW-LxZCqqw>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] NTPv5 draft
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: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 21:31:11 -0000

james.ietf@gmail.com said:
> I'm also interested in NTPv5. Based on my current use cases, the  protocol
> having downgrade-resistant authentication as a core function of  the protocol
> ...

I don't think there will be anything in the protocol that requires 
downgrading.  There might be opportunities depending on server implementation 
details.  They might be there with or without words in an RFC.  The client can 
easily ignore them.

I think a paragraph mentioning downgrading would fit well in the Security 
section of an RFC.



-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email