IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TICTOC] [ntpwg] WGLC on NTS: Round trips for key exchange

Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> Sun, 27 March 2016 02:24 UTC

Return-Path: <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
X-Original-To: tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52C6712D0A4 for <tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 19:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.033
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.033 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 zANxbGqv5s9o for <tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 19:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net [64.139.1.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7EA8128874 for <tictoc@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 19:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shuksan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BF4D406060; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 19:24:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.3
To: Brian Utterback <brian.utterback@oracle.com>
From: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from Brian Utterback <brian.utterback@oracle.com> of "Sat, 26 Mar 2016 21:54:05 EDT." <56F73D3D.7060704@oracle.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 19:24:07 -0700
Message-Id: <20160327022407.9BF4D406060@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tictoc/PyoWP36-NNIo2IEt8CnOgGf3PFI>
Cc: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org, Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>, tictoc@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TICTOC] [ntpwg] WGLC on NTS: Round trips for key exchange
X-BeenThere: tictoc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Timing over IP Connection and Transfer of Clock BOF <tictoc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tictoc>, <mailto:tictoc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tictoc/>
List-Post: <mailto:tictoc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tictoc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc>, <mailto:tictoc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 02:24:10 -0000

brian.utterback@oracle.com said:
> I wonder if it might not make sense to use the first authenticated  sample
> to validate the previous unauthenticated samples. If the offset  from the
> first authenticated sample is not within some threshold of the  previous
> samples then the older ones are thrown out. But if they are  within the
> threshold they are accepted. 

My vote would be to put ideas like that on the back burner.

It adds a layer of complexity it two places.  That's an opportunity for bugs.

One is the general NTP timekeeping area.  The other is the security area.



-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email