Re: [Ntp] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-08: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>]

,
 "[e-mail]"
 <[e-mail]>,
 Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>
Thread-Topic: [Ntp] =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric?= Vyncke's No Objection on
 draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-08: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHV8WTUM4W4Xkjtt0iTq9pzkPT9bag47caw
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 21:06:11 +0000
Message-ID: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0216F673FD@marchand>
References: Message from Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]> of "Tue, 03
 Mar 2020 07:52:51 +0200."
 <CABUE3X=6=UkYxbj_U1ZzU=zkc53n5Zm2rqp3Gq53waUi=[e-mail]>
 <[e-mail]>
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.64.22.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At:
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/wfSay7wYphLFJTn-x0FHmhicZsU>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 13:14:54 -0800
Subject: Re: [Ntp] 
 =?iso-8859-1?q?=C9ric_Vyncke=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-iet?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?f-ntp-packet-timestamps-08=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ntp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ntp>,
 <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ntp/>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp>,
 <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 21:06:25 -0000

Hi!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Hal Murray
> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2020 9:05 AM
> To: Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Karen O'Donoghue
> <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; =C9r=
ic
> Vyncke <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Ntp] =C9ric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ntp-packet-
> timestamps-08: (with COMMENT)
>=20
>=20
> [e-mail] said:
> > NEW: a timestamp is often used as part of a value that is unlikely to
> > repeat
> > (nonce)
>=20
> Is there a good reference for using time as a nonce?  I'd be happier if t=
here
> was a hint that it's easy to get times to repeat if you don't have a TOY =
clock.

(SEC ADs were invoked at the start of the thread, but let me jump in mid-st=
ream ...)

Using a clock to get non-repeating value for nonce is sometimes all you can=
 get, so given the context here, it works for me.  It might not be appropri=
ate for all solutions.

RFC4949 has a definition of nonce.

Roman


> > NEW: The number of bits (or octets) used to represent the packet
> timestamp
> > field.  If the timestamp is comprised of more than one field, the size =
of
> > each field is specified. Network order (big endian) is assumed by defau=
lt; if
> > this is not the case then this section explicitly specifies the endiani=
ty.
>=20
> Are there any RFCs that use other than big-endian?  Introducing the
> opportunity for otherwise seems like unnecessary complexity as well as an
> invitation for interoperability troubles.
>=20
>=20
> --
> These are my opinions.  I hate spam.
>=20
>=20