Re: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Ulrich,

On 3/20/2020 12:13 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> Hi Harlan,
> 
> it's obvious that you want to keep port 123/TCP reserved for NTP. However
> there were no projects in the last 20 years that would have wanted that port.

Not true.  I put forth proposals almost 2 years ago, and the WG refused
to collaborate or consider them.

> Aslo Dave Mills once said NTP over TCP does not make sense at all, and the
> whole protocol design is incompatible with it. So at best the stil-to-be-done
> NTP v5 could use that port.

Dave was right.  Nobody is going to be using TCP for time transport.

It is *very* useful for other purposes related to issue around "time
transport" and that what my proposal set out to enable.  NTS-KE is not that.

We will implement and document what we propose soon.

> Sorry I did not attend the meetings you are referring to, but still from time
> to time you could repeat the facts instead of referring to them.

I think my efforts are much better spent making forward progress in our
current NTP-related affairs.

H

> Regards,
> Ulrich
> 
>>>> Harlan Stenn <stenn@nwtime.org> schrieb am 20.03.2020 um 06:06 in
> Nachricht
> <31041_1584680845_5E744F8D_31041_97_1_ced12651-75fb-d5ee-3ea6-95a1e1a6aaaf@nwtim
> .org>:
> 
>>
>> On 3/19/2020 9:47 PM, Hal Murray wrote:
>>>
>>> stenn@nwtime.org said:
>>>> The NTP Project has sent its plans for TCP/123 to the working group, to
> be
>>>> used by "NTP TCP Services".  We intend this to be used for a variety of
>>>> NTP‑related TCP services.  That is a work in progress.  Otherwise, the
> NTP
>>>> Project remains strongly opposed to using TCP/123 for NTS‑KE because of
> <good
>>>> reasons we have stated before to the WG, and I want to save everybody the
>>>> drama so I won't go in to them now>. 
>>>
>>> Your "good reasons" would carry more weight in my view if you would provide
> 
>> a 
>>> reference to your ideas.
>>
>> Hal, I'm pretty sure you at least virtually attended the meetings where
>> this was discussed.
>>
>> I've also posted various emails about it.
>>
>>> Google found 2 drafts from 2018.  The total useful content was 2 paragraphs
> 
>>> with few details.  Maybe I didn't search for the right thing.  The first 
>> said 
>>> TCP and STARTTLS.  The second said key exchange.  In my opinion, both have
> 
>>> been superseded by NTS‑KE.
>>>
>>> Are there other ideas I didn't find?
>>>
>>> I think it would be a good idea to move ntpq operations to a secure
> channel. 
>>  
>>> NTS‑KE uses ALPN.  Is there any reason not to take advantage of ALPN so we
> 
>> can 
>>> share port 123 with future ideas?
>>
>> Please look at what I have said before.
>>
>> ‑‑ 
>> Harlan Stenn <stenn@nwtime.org>
>> http://networktimefoundation.org ‑ be a member!
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ntp mailing list
>> ntp@ietf.org 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Harlan Stenn <stenn@nwtime.org>
http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member!