IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] Splitting the Roughtime draft?

Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> Sun, 31 January 2021 21:14 UTC

Return-Path: <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
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 383963A125E for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Jan 2021 13:14:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 m0UuOxyfFxM5 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Jan 2021 13:14:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62e.google.com (mail-ej1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03C3C3A1258 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Jan 2021 13:14:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id r12so21189797ejb.9 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Jan 2021 13:14:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=X/n4oDZbxFWCAvmbYeopg2QEz5ly0imI2elW2XonKTA=; b=P7bTlGckxtEoDjOi4uyG8pdf5rx/rIDNi3tmq02LXMVuzTueNTQQvYTAArRiTW2M55 9G9vB6Hl84yD3p8Wa8rWjj8ei6j1R+x6b/6/aZDbdPKQJjmfBNXGVGjVJr88SLGLkqBm iLZvD9MhAvRdcy3D+gQ0ZgduEo5aEm0iig0lZkvOYA2tjA4LaUhyTKXZNb9wDPjFMla1 wg63TIh1RB+fqKbdxW1IOeTMHE+eWKuZm4SPH6iZcu616w1Fs1Utv2FI+7ZkS6E4zF46 9OxpQ3QKYV6CT8eNv1UUkqRwabMPrnMQupkhtG8TeG1z3qsD+G2/7pvPfnvOK0Xc8QR9 lWCw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=X/n4oDZbxFWCAvmbYeopg2QEz5ly0imI2elW2XonKTA=; b=fOK1ewUd62pIyX21MDGkcp4qyv1lXDQP0f4NpOM8injqXO0W3uM4YfVdVF3VJQOHPA XoMFhrpKfPa2gpiJGQzFmAswxg35fx7KBBcQRytY7i8ZkXRWRLNkjzmtrlwGIDFSfV0U J4sjyN4tVVrTXiN0lQ27NmJAs9/l5e1+3jUsTdMIGkqr5R7MFqwiJxTlZcWG2uqJZoPq V+syQbBlag+HXMjIf0pqKYcMlQ1SIYHEYRzWLdFWpB13qKuMd7Beaoo8PHfQao9duWbR Fcq9p+seWY0fhGolCO/COL0yH1HFqxr5h+GGKcIkUK5dRckEUcDPUjZ7JQ7ahjcRPicO 7QIQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531tthXwC8r7//dFbKsgjLyyv3Z0Yl/7a5Zk62kor3Cc7NkkSitS LjMCYHExJvFQ49ERWWKKP9Zwo0K9vkr0hCJKurk/Wbe9Hkk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwQA0Qq2sUToG4UtLHF00oYyxsSRQIk6bQt2fzfzn2D8EmrRyRaD00ZnxEZRaxSowWzUFcsZb9ng0gYKBCbq5E=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:9381:: with SMTP id l1mr15280366ejx.433.1612127663605; Sun, 31 Jan 2021 13:14:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <watsonbladd@gmail.com> <CACsn0cmH2QhaTL9FjfeKX0EL1E21ZC7_ae4JX2GHdu+38fh_8w@mail.gmail.com> <20210131210225.346D7406061@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
In-Reply-To: <20210131210225.346D7406061@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2021 13:14:12 -0800
Message-ID: <CACsn0c=1iNQLYpz_M8-TwLGNa0bBRGKNNGFgg7v=KEFQZfX5=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
Cc: NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/vyE1dyFENEosTuBDJli54ffpPUI>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Splitting the Roughtime 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: Sun, 31 Jan 2021 21:14:26 -0000

On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 1:02 PM Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> wrote:
>
>
> watsonbladd@gmail.com said:
> > Downthread you mentioned revocation, and I think signing a specifically
> > formatted recovation message would work fine. This would be a roughtime
> > message, just one with a special tag alone that demonstrates the operator
> > considers the key compromised.
>
> Without a valid key, you can't verify that message so bad guys can forge one.
> That seems like a nasty complication.  Do you want to go down that path?

I miswrote: It would of course be signed by the key involved.

-- 
Astra mortemque praestare gradatim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email