Re: [Ntp] Antwort: Re: NTS4UPTP Rev 03 - Formal request for WG adoption [FORMAL RESPONSES?]

Heiko Gerstung <heiko.gerstung@meinberg.de> Mon, 14 June 2021 06:22 UTC

User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.49.21050901
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 08:22:48 +0200
Message-ID: <550C32D7-D24A-4068-8EDF-52DF3B4D5E6C@meinberg.de>
Thread-Topic: [Ntp] Antwort: Re: NTS4UPTP Rev 03 - Formal request for WG adoption [FORMAL RESPONSES?]
References: <OFF51374C9.98B99AED-ONC12586E9.002729B7-C12586E9.002729B8@ptb.de> <20210603090654.C885540605C@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
In-Reply-To: <20210603090654.C885540605C@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
Importance: Normal
Thread-Index: AZ2x3tU+MmUzMWI2OGZjYWEzMTI2Mw==
From: Heiko Gerstung <heiko.gerstung@meinberg.de>
To: Hal Murray <halmurray@sonic.net>, "kristof.teichel@ptb.de" <kristof.teichel@ptb.de>
Cc: NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="----1289E316F5587CF3989B2EFF390F8CF7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/uqzHg5AsxuAJAPEdFernyKyyvcY>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Antwort: Re: NTS4UPTP Rev 03 - Formal request for WG adoption [FORMAL RESPONSES?]
Precedence: list

> Am 11.06.21, 17:14 schrieb "ntp im Auftrag von Hal Murray"
> <ntp-bounces@ietf.org im Auftrag von halmurray@sonic.net>:
> 
> 
> I don't know anything about PTP (except what the draft explains).

You can find more explanations about PTP in our blog (https://blog.meinbergglobal.com/), since unicast PTP is quite different from multicast PTP, I recommend these articles:

https://blog.meinbergglobal.com/2014/04/16/unicast-ptp/

https://blog.meinbergglobal.com/2013/09/14/ieee-1588-accurate/

These are short articles. I am sure Doug is happy to answer any questions regarding PTP. 

> 
> I'm working from draft-gerstung-nts4uptp-02.pdf  (which I got a few minutes
> ago)
> 
> I don't see any fatal flaws, but it doesn't feel good.
> 
> You will have to prove that phase 2 is secure.  That doesn't look easy to
> me,
> but I'm not a crypto geek.

We did come up with this proposal after quite a number of iterations and a lot of discussions and we are quite sure it is secure. As already mentioned earlier, nothing provides 100% security, therefore it is important to define what "secure" means. We believe that the proposed draft describes a method of securing unicast PTP to a point where it is "secure enough" for almost all applications.

> Why not move phase 2 to the TLS connection?
That would be an option, but it would require a lot more resources on the uncast PTP server. The current proposal requires the PTP client to establish a TLS connection once or twice a day to the NTS-KE server. Moving phase 2 into the TLS connection would require every PTP client to establish a TLS connection to each unicast PTP server it uses every couple of minutes (or even more often, depending on the duration of the contract (subscription) for the packet transmission). 

> If you do that, is there any need for cookies?
I do not think you would need a cookie in this case.

Best Regards,
    Heiko



-- 
Heiko Gerstung 
Managing Director 
 
MEINBERG® Funkuhren GmbH & Co. KG 
Lange Wand 9 
D-31812 Bad Pyrmont, Germany 
Phone: +49 (0)5281 9309-404 
Fax: +49 (0)5281 9309-9404 
 
Amtsgericht Hannover 17HRA 100322 
Geschäftsführer/Management: Günter Meinberg, Werner Meinberg, Andre Hartmann, Heiko Gerstung 
 
Email: 
heiko.gerstung@meinberg.de
Web: 
Deutsch https://www.meinberg.de
English https://www.meinbergglobal.com
 
Do not miss our Time Synchronization Blog: 
https://blog.meinbergglobal.com
 
Connect via LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/in/heikogerstung

Attachment: smime.p7s

[Ntp] Antwort: Re: NTS4UPTP Rev 03 - Formal reque… kristof.teichel
Re: [Ntp] Antwort: Re: NTS4UPTP Rev 03 - Formal r… Hal Murray
Re: [Ntp] Antwort: Re: NTS4UPTP Rev 03 - Formal r… Heiko Gerstung

Re: [Ntp] Antwort: Re: NTS4UPTP Rev 03 - Formal request for WG adoption [FORMAL RESPONSES?]

Attachment: smime.p7s