Re: [Ntp] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-ntp-port-randomization-06: (with COMMENT)

Miroslav Lichvar <> Wed, 02 June 2021 11:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 399713A4001 for <>; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 04:42:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.795
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.795 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.698, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5VaI9au-CxTR for <>; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 04:42:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B74373A4000 for <>; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 04:42:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=mimecast20190719; t=1622634143; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=CKNxP9byv/+CaKWXajGYkOXcXeu1vHiiglQ2gCyb6O8=; b=ALy93u9HSvKSjsr2Lk9HGKA3Bg5fD/sN0WI+ftfD0bNLDszbHrPq3Szj4OLk32dle+bRB4 nk8h8VhWVGMg3azQNiJgj34fW2xslvS//JPTYKzDkTdnMT9POAtoyvQyevjhC2GVhBwvHD O8rlNmrfnqRllu8tWtcMi8kCJ+hus2g=
Received: from ( []) (Using TLS) by with ESMTP id us-mta-293-ptMVMgu0M-SMEL39m4xJwg-1; Wed, 02 Jun 2021 07:42:18 -0400
X-MC-Unique: ptMVMgu0M-SMEL39m4xJwg-1
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A5368027E2; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 11:42:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D32D878642; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 11:42:15 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 13:42:14 +0200
From: Miroslav Lichvar <>
To: Robert Wilton <>
Cc: The IESG <>,,,,
Message-ID: <YLdulmWfXYDRqkHr@localhost>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on
Authentication-Results:; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-ntp-port-randomization-06: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 11:42:29 -0000

On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 03:54:03AM -0700, Robert Wilton via Datatracker wrote:
> Like Ben's comment, I was wondering why the document doesn't give a stronger
> recommendation as to which of the two approaches to follow.  It looks like all
> the implementations that the document lists already take the per-association
> approach, and that approach seems to be sufficient.   Hence, would it not be
> simpler to make that the RECOMMENDED approach, and then say that
> implementations MAY do per request randomization, but need to be aware that
> individual requests are more likely to take different paths with different
> latencies?

Both approaches have some disadvantages, which may have a different
impact depending on the implementation (e.g. it's filtering
capabilities), so it's difficult to make a general recommendation. 

The implementations mentioned in the document don't use the same
approach. OpenNTPD and sntp seem to use the per-session
approach, but chrony by default uses the per-request approach. Another
widely used client using the per-request approach is the busybox ntpd.

Miroslav Lichvar