IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ntpwg] Parsing NTP packets regarding MACs and EXTs.

Danny Mayer <mayer@ntp.org> Tue, 21 June 2016 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4566412D1E6 for <ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=unavailable 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 FCfBJdiijz0g for <ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 183DF12D5CD for <ntp-archives-ahFae6za@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBAD486DAE9 for <ntp-archives-ahFae6za@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:41:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC73186D55E for <ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:41:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [198.22.153.130] (helo=[10.2.184.123]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <mayer@ntp.org>) id 1bFOkI-000JW5-7i; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:41:50 +0000
References: <stenn@ntp.org> <E1bFCJh-000G0C-Bf@stenn.ntp.org> <20160621093932.BD9A7406057@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net> <f4f6f8f969ac49ff819ccae06ec2e3db@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <d5934cd7-5808-3e2b-3ed6-b5e1b3f9e2df@ntp.org> <CAJm83bAHcSQtOHRjUHVk7o27KmbSqH_dad+dLMAhQ6Vh3hnsWw@mail.gmail.com> <d201d6d1-e769-c9c3-492c-409f129e54a9@ntp.org> <89190d0a867f4906b04431dda735cf8a@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com>
From: Danny Mayer <mayer@ntp.org>
Organization: NTP
Message-ID: <35fe3778-3580-001f-67a7-e91d3ef7584e@ntp.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:41:48 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <89190d0a867f4906b04431dda735cf8a@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.22.153.130
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org, stenn@ntp.org, hmurray@megapathdsl.net, dfoxfranke@gmail.com, rsalz@akamai.com
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mayer@ntp.org
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org)
Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Parsing NTP packets regarding MACs and EXTs.
X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol <ntpwg.lists.ntp.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ntp.org/options/ntpwg>, <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ntp.org/pipermail/ntpwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg>, <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: mayer@ntp.org
Cc: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" <ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>, Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org
Sender: ntpwg <ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org>

On 6/21/2016 11:51 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>> Yes, the intention is to relegate the old MAC to existing usage and only use
>> EF MAC for future use. We are also planning to move to GMAC for hashing
>> algorithms.
> 
> Why?  I understand AES-GCM as it's widespread and has hardware assist on most server platforms, but why GMAC and not one of the more common mechanisms?
> 
> 

The intention is not to limit ourselves and AES-GCM is only one of the
algorithms. The RFC needs to be updated but the reference implementation
will support what's available and should be be flexible enough to switch
algorithms in case any of them become regarded as vunerable.

Danny

_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email