IETF Logo Mail Archive

[TICTOC] Antw: Re: [Ntp] WGLC for draft-ietf-ntp-mac

"Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> Wed, 30 August 2017 07:24 UTC

Return-Path: <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
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 C5A1A132DD8; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 00:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham 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 qkH-KKi1w3EK; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 00:24:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de (rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de [194.94.155.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6BDF1323B6; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 00:24:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 385B25750F; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 09:24:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.5.51]) by rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF6714F08B; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 09:24:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 09:24:09 +0200
Message-Id: <59A66816020000A100027A91@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 14.2.2
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 09:24:06 +0200
From: Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
To: Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com>, "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>, odonoghue@isoc.org
Cc: "tictoc@ietf.org" <tictoc@ietf.org>
References: <CF57EAFE-31F0-4ADD-A209-1802DB6CA643@isoc.org> <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBB599924@dggeml507-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBB599924@dggeml507-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tictoc/VTmpvLSC4K7reG7V719UiuQE6j8>
Subject: [TICTOC] Antw: Re: [Ntp] WGLC for draft-ietf-ntp-mac
X-BeenThere: tictoc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 07:24:14 -0000

>>> Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com> schrieb am 29.08.2017 um 08:06 in
Nachricht
<3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBB599924@dggeml507-mbx.china.huawei.com>:
> Hi, I support the publication of this draft, though I have several 
> suggestions for the texts:
> 
> 
> 1.       “If authentication is implemented, then AES-CMAC as specified in

> RFC
>         4493 [RFC4493] should be computed…” in Section 3.
> This is a requirement, so I think it should use “SHOULD” instead of 
> “should”.
> But if this AES-CMAC is the only authentication mechanism, it is better to 
> use “MUST”.
> 
> 
> 2.       “We recommend that the MAC key for NTP SHOULD be 128 bits long 
> AES-128 key…” in Section 3.
> To be more formal, maybe it can be rephrased into “It is RECOMMENDED that

> the MAC key for NTP SHOULD be 128 bits long AES-128 key…”

Why not: "The MAC key for NTP SHOULD be a 128 bits long AES-128 key…"?

[...]

Regards,
Ulrich

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email