[Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: NTPv5 draft

>>> Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> schrieb am 01.12.2020 um 11:40 in
Nachricht <20201201104040.3691640605C@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>:

> mlichvar@redhat.com said:
>> Ok, so if the draft said something like "NTP clients SHOULD use
>> authentication", would that work for you? Ultimately, it would be up to
the
>> client's default configuration whether authentication is enabled or not. 
> 
> That doesn't sound right to me.
> 
> You can't say SHOULD for something that is hard to implement.  In 
> particular, 
> authentication doesn't work with the pool.  For that SHOULD to make sense, 
> we 
> either have to add authentication to the pool or we have to put the pool out

> 
> of business.

Authentication as it is now with autokey being dead. Symmetric keys won't work
for pools, but asymmetric would.

> 
> You can say something like "implementations SHOULD support authentication". 

> 
> It probably takes a paragraph to explain what that means and why we think it

> 
> is a good idea.  But in reality, the basic protocol is so simple that people

> 
> will throw together their own implementation, probably by reading stuff from

> 
> the web rather than the actual RFC.
> 
> I think there is a chicken‑egg problem.  Yesterday, authentication was hard

> to 
> setup.  With NTS, it should be easy to setup the client side.  Now we have 
> to 
> get some public servers that support NTS.  We need lots of them, not just a

> few.
> 
> As a starter, it would be nice if ISPs ran authenticated servers for their 
> clients.  Cloud farms too.
> 
> 
> 
> ‑‑ 
> These are my opinions.  I hate spam.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> ntp@ietf.org 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp 