IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TICTOC] [ntpwg] WGLC on NTS: Why not run over IPsec?

Harlan Stenn <stenn@ntp.org> Sat, 26 March 2016 00:48 UTC

Return-Path: <stenn@stenn.ntp.org>
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 3E2EE12D09B for <tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 17:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 jY9Ux95NJpqL for <tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 17:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stenn.ntp.org (stenn.ntp.org [149.20.68.30]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CB3512D099 for <tictoc@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 17:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [::1] (helo=stenn.ntp.org) by stenn.ntp.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <stenn@stenn.ntp.org>) id 1ajcOp-000GFt-HL; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 00:48:19 +0000
From: Harlan Stenn <stenn@ntp.org>
To: Sharon Goldberg <goldbe@cs.bu.edu>
In-reply-to: <CAJHGrrS82zYYHq0Yrx+HbRSOGLS6MEA+5aBigMrmX0NPM3YbvQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJHGrrQH0Ce+UFTy6m=SrzTk0AWmBFywC88HccHy0+WG16ibdQ@mail.gmail.com> <20160323172740.GA28288@roeckx.be> <CAJHGrrS82zYYHq0Yrx+HbRSOGLS6MEA+5aBigMrmX0NPM3YbvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Sharon Goldberg <goldbe@cs.bu.edu> message dated "Thu, 24 Mar 2016 18:35:29 -0400."
X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4.2; nmh 1.6; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 24)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 1.8)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 00:48:19 +0000
Message-Id: <E1ajcOp-000GFt-HL@stenn.ntp.org>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tictoc/_QDr-Oe_GdYfY-zwBsYowAb4Os8>
Cc: NTP Working Group <ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>, tictoc@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TICTOC] [ntpwg] WGLC on NTS: Why not run over IPsec?
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: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 00:48:25 -0000

Sharon Goldberg writes:
> It could also use DTLS instead of TLS, which does work over UDP.

As I recall when we started the implementation we looked at DTLS and
CMS.  I don't recall why CMS was chosen, but there were good reasons.
Also, there's no reason DTLS could not be used instead.

H

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email