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

[Watson Ladd <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 12:28 AM Ulrich Windl
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >>> Watson Ladd <[e-mail]> schrieb am 28.09.2021 um 03:48 in
> Nachricht
> <CACsn0cmks2fdwem1rS+QNzCL1WhNR4890Fi1zpjQrL=E3Y=[e-mail]>:
> ...
> >> 9. Hashing algorithm in Section 6.3
> >>
> >> It's not clear why the algorithm can only be SHA‑512. This really should
> >> be separately referenced so that if SHA‑512 is considered too week in
> >> can be replaced by a different hashing algorithm like say HMAC‑SHA‑512,
> >> without having to update the proposed RFC.
> >
> > Part of what is required for roughtime is interoperability between all
> > servers, auditors, and clients. Using only a single hash function and
> > signature, and then migrating entire versions, is a better approach
> > than permitting everything.
>
> Why not specify that the only supported hash algorithm for this protocol
> version is SHA-512, while later protocol version might require or support
> different algorithms?

I'm happy to add that sentence: it means nothing. Future protocols can
change a lot of things.

> 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.
Sincerely,
Watson Ladd
>
> ...
>
> Regards,
> Ulrich Windl
>
>


-- 
Astra mortemque praestare gradatim