IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] An NTPv5 design sketch

Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com> Tue, 14 April 2020 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <dfoxfranke@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 36EB93A0CA7 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 09:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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] 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 SIMBxoKxaNfN for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 09:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x136.google.com (mail-il1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::136]) (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 BE8F93A0CE9 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 09:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x136.google.com with SMTP id i75so260227ild.13 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 09:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
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=OCiczTiiOwNqZIl9Mcya5miQgT9gjP9gUx/FR5ATjkM=; b=j4+DG2Tk0q1bjsCgmJ6y9CGB18/AfYjhhH3eclNV1YN79sKEw5gGXTkkjfwb1Ht7aS x+gqJXFZQWBGQIlnK3Z4HYU0Y70rmTmS3vOD8Qwua/AQh/el8y6AT40eiOW7fD/Ess1F P5Sp/0A998RD7PTs1gN2+wv/g+nUYvfletDaWJ+v5TexFH6G4VPZQnaJIOSlXdQNwinz 0RrAqC/ZPkdzM5DH/fLUWmpJ+S1aqOTzGraBgEQBuxsBE21tcV9+bpco3zh7n7HUxha8 UQ0P86hsva5oIGgzQRHZKYWCV8xIgZ4UJArEuCExvkoyJnG2D672zVrbQNggOAbFfkPR Kkrg==
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=OCiczTiiOwNqZIl9Mcya5miQgT9gjP9gUx/FR5ATjkM=; b=rgL8nRPCQ6e0hWm6P+2HDSC5U3Y80ewL2h4mnKXuiV6oiF/C7uNd+IFEp97YMbvem7 Jtf8naEHvFMJ73gspVu+T2dD90u/moGM8QSV1ypBuI/+T7daQ0ZUyFKFRZgcbPm6mXQ8 a9pmG9psBsWoOaVlZ30BPDO4Eri4MKED+zogjq8iV+MdYIwR9+GoIZl2bWbWb4v+TT72 7vsplMaPVj6FeUMLTDUNZ1Mj9Zifq777sicn6as4hY4Q6jFKknLuwC8KxLrDwAB7mmYE Vv5EqkjwfhwPpJkJCsMLlfWJZAVxR3jngQy3MlF5jaeoRbhhWdba2v+fZFX4LdwfAdiH PZ8Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZfGn3mj+upQ6oFZ2V7P8vFZOW6e/pyC/sZwFn+stBwu//8QNgY wR6ymtmb3G7LzsminiTQwA8vR9zgT2waqBKv4WM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJnjOGZ/VGkShqso9L/bdn4EKZmeYFzONoWr1yBN8tBdBEvtj3019eW0mNFj8wVbK6Yt9Dc5AhU07YcJ94k8Us=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:1581:: with SMTP id 1mr1093641ilv.144.1586881809016; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 09:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJm83bBV+Pox3r6KU49ShwMOvr=R+U_vDKJtSZhfT6XX4qWmbA@mail.gmail.com> <20200414112541.GD1945@localhost> <CAJm83bCxuS_X68-pvpOWCPSmjAjTeYNJVuuOEhV-i82R7B28Mg@mail.gmail.com> <20200414155241.GF1945@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20200414155241.GF1945@localhost>
From: Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 12:29:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJm83bC1EhwQQ=+B7XPbEkvhOWvxU8zjCd290Fj5N43aMJQTkg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
Cc: NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/yN8ymcQdI5IQKTj-B4vho_Ehy9o>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] An NTPv5 design sketch
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: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 16:30:13 -0000

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 11:52 AM Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> wrote:
> Is NTPv5 not meant to obsolete NTPv4?

It is. But if a dumb "send me back a UDP packet that has a current
timestamp in it, and I'll set my clock to that" protocol is something
that needs to keep existing, we've already got that and re-inventing
the packet format doesn't help anybody. For bureaucratic purposes so
that we can formally obsolete RFC 5905, we can write a short auxiliary
RFC that restates whatever parts of RFC 5905 Section 14 or RFC 4330
need restating and modernizes the Security Considerations section.

> Even if not, the new features of NTPv5 may be useful to clients that cannot or won't support TLS.

If you can point to some real-world examples of systems that can't
make due with SNTP and can't spare 20k for a TLS stack, then you'll
change my mind.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email