<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.7.11 (Ruby 3.2.4) -->
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-15" category="std" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" updates="5905, 5906, 8573, 7822, 7821" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.21.0 -->
  <front>
    <title>Updating the NTP Registries</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-15"/>
    <author initials="R." surname="Salz" fullname="Rich Salz">
      <organization>Akamai Technologies</organization>
      <address>
        <email>rsalz@akamai.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2024" month="May" day="16"/>
    <workgroup>ntp</workgroup>
    <keyword>NTP</keyword>
    <keyword>extensions</keyword>
    <keyword>registries</keyword>
    <keyword>IANA</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <?line 34?>

<t>The Network Time Protocol (NTP) and Network Time Security (NTS) documents
define a number of assigned number registries, collectively called the NTP
registries.</t>
      <t>Some registries have wrong values, some registries
do not follow current common practice, and some are just right.
For the sake of completeness, this document reviews all NTP and NTS registries,
and makes updates where necessary.</t>
      <t>This document updates RFC 5905, RFC 5906, RFC 8573, RFC 7822, and
RFC 7821.</t>
    </abstract>
    <note removeInRFC="true">
      <name>Notes</name>
      <t>This document is a product of the
    <eref target="https://dt.ietf.org/wg/ntp">NTP Working Group</eref>.
    Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
    <eref target="https://github.com/richsalz/draft-rsalz-update-registries"/>.
      </t>
      <t>RFC Editor: Please update 'this RFC' to refer to this document,
    once its RFC number is known, through the document.</t>
    </note>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <?line 48?>

<section anchor="introduction">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>The Network Time Protocol (NTP) and Network Time Security (NTS) documents
define a number of assigned number registries, collectively called the NTP
registries.
The NTP registries can all be found at
<eref target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/ntp-parameters/ntp-parameters.xhtml">https://www.iana.org/assignments/ntp-parameters/ntp-parameters.xhtml</eref>
and the NTS registries can all be found at
<eref target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/nts/nts.xhtml">https://www.iana.org/assignments/nts/nts.xhtml</eref>.</t>
      <t>Some registries have wrong values, some registries
do not follow current common practice, and some are just right.
For the sake of completeness, this document reviews all NTP and NTS registries,
and makes updates where necessary.</t>
      <t>The bulk of this document can be divided into two parts:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>First, each registry, its defining document, and a summary of its
syntax is defined.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Second, the revised format and entries for each registry that is
being modified is specified.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
    </section>
    <section anchor="existing-registries">
      <name>Existing Registries</name>
      <t>This section describes the registries and the rules for them.
It is intended to be a short summary of the syntax and registration
requirements for each registry.
The semantics and protocol processing rules for each registry -- that is,
how an implementation acts when sending or receiving any of the fields --
are not described here.</t>
      <section anchor="reference-id-kiss-o-death">
        <name>Reference ID, Kiss-o'-Death</name>
        <t><xref target="RFC5905"/> defined two registries; the Reference ID in Section 7.3, and the
Kiss-o'-Death in Section 7.4.  Both of these are allowed to be four ASCII
characters; padded on the right with all-bits-zero if necessary.
Entries that start with 0x58, the ASCII
letter uppercase X, are reserved for Private or Experimental Use.
Both registries are first-come first-served. The formal request to define
the registries is in <xref section="16" sectionFormat="comma" target="RFC5905"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="extension-field-types">
        <name>Extension Field Types</name>
        <t><xref section="7.5" sectionFormat="comma" target="RFC5905"/> defined the on-the-wire format of extension
fields but did not create a registry for them.</t>
        <t><xref section="13" sectionFormat="comma" target="RFC5906"/> mentioned the Extension Field Types registry, and defined it
indirectly by defining 30 extensions (10 each for request, response, and
error response).
It did not provide a formal definition of the columns in the registry.
<xref section="10" sectionFormat="comma" target="RFC5906"/> splits the Field Type into four subfields,
only for use within the Autokey extensions.</t>
        <t><xref target="RFC7821"/> added a new entry, Checksum Complement, to the Extension
Field Types registry.</t>
        <t><xref target="RFC7822"/> clarified the processing rules for Extension Field Types,
particularly around the interaction with the Message Authentication
Code (MAC) field. NTPv4 packets may contain a MAC that appears where
one would expect the next extension field header.</t>
        <t><xref target="RFC8573"/> changed the cryptography used in the MAC field.</t>
        <t><xref target="RFC8915"/> added four new entries to the Extension Field Types registry.</t>
        <t>The following problems exist with the current registry:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>Many of the entries in the Extension Field Types registry have
swapped some of the nibbles; 0x1234 is listed as 0x1432 for example.
This was due to documentation errors with the original implementation
of Autokey.
This document marks the erroneous values as reserved, in case there
is an implementation that used the registered values
instead of what the original implementation used.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Some values were mistakenly re-used.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
      </section>
      <section anchor="network-time-security-registries">
        <name>Network Time Security Registries</name>
        <t><xref target="RFC8915"/> defines the NTS protocol.
Its registries are listed here for completeness, but no changes
to them are specified in this document.</t>
        <t>Sections 7.1 through 7.5 (inclusive) added entries to existing registries.</t>
        <t>Section 7.6 created a new registry, NTS Key Establishment Record Types,
that partitions the assigned numbers into three different registration
policies: IETF Review, Specification Required, and Private or Experimental Use.</t>
        <t>Section 7.7 created a new registry, NTS Next Protocols,
that similarly partitions the assigned numbers.</t>
        <t>Section 7.8 created two new registries, NTS Error Codes and NTS Warning Codes.
Both registries are also partitioned the same way.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="updated-registries">
      <name>Updated Registries</name>
      <t>The following general guidelines apply to all registries updated here:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Every registry reserves a partition for Private or Experimental Use.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Entries with ASCII fields are now limited to uppercase letters or digits; fields
starting with 0x58, the uppercase letter "X", are reserved for Private or
Experimental Use.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>The policy for every registry is now Specification Required, as defined
in <xref section="4.6" sectionFormat="comma" target="RFC8126"/>.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>The IESG is requested to choose three designated experts, with two being
required to approve a registry change. Guidance for such experts is
given below.</t>
      <t>Each entry described in the sub-sections below is intended to completely
replace the existing entry with the same name.</t>
      <section anchor="guidance-to-designated-experts">
        <name>Guidance to Designated Experts</name>
        <t>The designated experts (DE) should be familiar with <xref target="RFC8126"/>, particularly
Section 5. As that reference suggests, the DE should ascertain the existence
of a suitable specification, and verify that it is publicly available. The DE
is also expected to check the clarity of purpose and use of the requested
code points.</t>
        <t>In addition, the DE is expected to be familiar with this document,
specifically the history documented here.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <section anchor="ntp-reference-identifier-codes">
        <name>NTP Reference Identifier Codes</name>
        <t>The registration procedure is changed to Specification Required.</t>
        <t>The Note is changed to read as follows:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>Codes beginning with the character "X" are reserved for experimentation
and development. IANA cannot assign them.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>The columns are defined as follows:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>ID (required): a four-byte value padded on the right with all-bits-zero.
Each byte other than padding must be an ASCII uppercase letter or digits.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Clock source (required): A brief text description of the ID.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Reference (required): the publication defining the ID.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>The existing entries are left unchanged.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="ntp-kiss-o-death-codes">
        <name>NTP Kiss-o'-Death Codes</name>
        <t>The registration procedure is changed to Specification Required.</t>
        <t>The Note is changed to read as follows:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>Codes beginning with the character "X" are reserved for experimentation
and development. IANA cannot assign them.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>The columns are defined as follows:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>ID (required): a four-byte value padded on the right with all-bits-zero.
Each byte other than padding must be an ASCII uppercase letter or digits.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Meaning source (required): A brief text description of the ID.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Reference (required): the publication defining the ID.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>The existing entries are left unchanged.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="ntp-extension-field-types">
        <name>NTP Extension Field Types</name>
        <t>The registration procedure is changed to Specification Required.</t>
        <t>The reference <xref target="RFC5906"/> should be added, if possible.</t>
        <t>The following two Notes are added:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>Field Types in the range 0xF000 through 0xFFFF, inclusive, are reserved
for experimentation and development. IANA cannot assign them.
Both NTS Cookie and Autokey Message Request have the same Field Type;
in practice this is not a problem as the field semantics will be
determined by other parts of the message.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>The "Reserved for historic reasons" is for differences between the
original documentation and implementation of Autokey and marks
the erroneous values as reserved, in case there is an implementation
that used the registered values instead of what the original
implementation used.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>The columns are defined as follows:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>Field Type (required): A two-byte value in hexadecimal.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Meaning (required): A brief text description of the field type.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Reference (required): the publication defining the field type.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>The table is replaced with the following entries.
IANA is requested to replace "This RFC" with the actual RFC number once
assigned.</t>
        <table>
          <thead>
            <tr>
              <th align="left">Field Type</th>
              <th align="left">Meaning</th>
              <th align="left">Reference</th>
            </tr>
          </thead>
          <tbody>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0000</td>
              <td align="left">Crypto-NAK; authentication failure</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5905</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0002</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0102</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0104</td>
              <td align="left">Unique Identifier</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 8915, Section 5.3</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0200</td>
              <td align="left">No-Operation Request</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0201</td>
              <td align="left">Association Message Request</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0202</td>
              <td align="left">Certificate Message Request</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0203</td>
              <td align="left">Cookie Message Request</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0204</td>
              <td align="left">Autokey Message Request</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0204</td>
              <td align="left">NTS Cookie</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 8915, Section 5.4</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0205</td>
              <td align="left">Leapseconds Message Request</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0206</td>
              <td align="left">Sign Message Request</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0207</td>
              <td align="left">IFF Identity Message Request</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0208</td>
              <td align="left">GQ Identity Message Request</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0209</td>
              <td align="left">MV Identity Message Request</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0302</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0304</td>
              <td align="left">NTS Cookie Placeholder</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 8915, Section 5.5</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0402</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0404</td>
              <td align="left">NTS Authenticator and Encrypted Extension Fields</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 8915, Section 5.6</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0502</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0602</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0702</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0902</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x2005</td>
              <td align="left">UDP Checksum Complement</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 7821</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8002</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8102</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8200</td>
              <td align="left">No-Operation Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8201</td>
              <td align="left">Association Message Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8202</td>
              <td align="left">Certificate Message Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8203</td>
              <td align="left">Cookie Message Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8204</td>
              <td align="left">Autokey Message Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8205</td>
              <td align="left">Leapseconds Message Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8206</td>
              <td align="left">Sign Message Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8207</td>
              <td align="left">IFF Identity Message Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8208</td>
              <td align="left">GQ Identity Message Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8209</td>
              <td align="left">MV Identity Message Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8302</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8402</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8502</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8602</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8702</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8802</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8902</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC002</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC102</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC200</td>
              <td align="left">No-Operation Error Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC201</td>
              <td align="left">Association Message Error Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC202</td>
              <td align="left">Certificate Message Error Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC203</td>
              <td align="left">Cookie Message Error Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC204</td>
              <td align="left">Autokey Message Error Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC205</td>
              <td align="left">Leapseconds Message Error Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC206</td>
              <td align="left">Sign Message Error Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC207</td>
              <td align="left">IFF Identity Message Error Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC208</td>
              <td align="left">GQ Identity Message Error Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC209</td>
              <td align="left">MV Identity Message Error Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC302</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC402</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC502</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC602</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC702</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC802</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC902</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xF000-<br/>0xFFFF</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for Experimental Use</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
          </tbody>
        </table>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>This document adds no new security considerations, as they are defined
in the document that defines the extension.  See the References column of the
appropriate table.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="acknowledgements">
      <name>Acknowledgements</name>
      <t>The members of the NTP Working Group helped a great deal.
Notable contributors include:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Miroslav Lichvar, Red Hat</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Daniel Franke, formerly at Akamai Technologies</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Danny Mayer, Network Time Foundation</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Michelle Cotton, formerly at IANA</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Tamme Dittrich, Tweede Golf</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references anchor="sec-normative-references">
      <name>Normative References</name>
      <reference anchor="RFC5905">
        <front>
          <title>Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification</title>
          <author fullname="D. Mills" initials="D." surname="Mills"/>
          <author fullname="J. Martin" initials="J." role="editor" surname="Martin"/>
          <author fullname="J. Burbank" initials="J." surname="Burbank"/>
          <author fullname="W. Kasch" initials="W." surname="Kasch"/>
          <date month="June" year="2010"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>The Network Time Protocol (NTP) is widely used to synchronize computer clocks in the Internet. This document describes NTP version 4 (NTPv4), which is backwards compatible with NTP version 3 (NTPv3), described in RFC 1305, as well as previous versions of the protocol. NTPv4 includes a modified protocol header to accommodate the Internet Protocol version 6 address family. NTPv4 includes fundamental improvements in the mitigation and discipline algorithms that extend the potential accuracy to the tens of microseconds with modern workstations and fast LANs. It includes a dynamic server discovery scheme, so that in many cases, specific server configuration is not required. It corrects certain errors in the NTPv3 design and implementation and includes an optional extension mechanism. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5905"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5905"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC5906">
        <front>
          <title>Network Time Protocol Version 4: Autokey Specification</title>
          <author fullname="B. Haberman" initials="B." role="editor" surname="Haberman"/>
          <author fullname="D. Mills" initials="D." surname="Mills"/>
          <date month="June" year="2010"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This memo describes the Autokey security model for authenticating servers to clients using the Network Time Protocol (NTP) and public key cryptography. Its design is based on the premise that IPsec schemes cannot be adopted intact, since that would preclude stateless servers and severely compromise timekeeping accuracy. In addition, Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) schemes presume authenticated time values are always available to enforce certificate lifetimes; however, cryptographically verified timestamps require interaction between the timekeeping and authentication functions.</t>
            <t>This memo includes the Autokey requirements analysis, design principles, and protocol specification. A detailed description of the protocol states, events, and transition functions is included. A prototype of the Autokey design based on this memo has been implemented, tested, and documented in the NTP version 4 (NTPv4) software distribution for the Unix, Windows, and Virtual Memory System (VMS) operating systems at http://www.ntp.org. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5906"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5906"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC7821">
        <front>
          <title>UDP Checksum Complement in the Network Time Protocol (NTP)</title>
          <author fullname="T. Mizrahi" initials="T." surname="Mizrahi"/>
          <date month="March" year="2016"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>The Network Time Protocol (NTP) allows clients to synchronize to a time server using timestamped protocol messages. To facilitate accurate timestamping, some implementations use hardware-based timestamping engines that integrate the accurate transmission time into every outgoing NTP packet during transmission. Since these packets are transported over UDP, the UDP Checksum field is then updated to reflect this modification. This document proposes an extension field that includes a 2-octet Checksum Complement, allowing timestamping engines to reflect the checksum modification in the last 2 octets of the packet rather than in the UDP Checksum field. The behavior defined in this document is interoperable with existing NTP implementations.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7821"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7821"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC7822">
        <front>
          <title>Network Time Protocol Version 4 (NTPv4) Extension Fields</title>
          <author fullname="T. Mizrahi" initials="T." surname="Mizrahi"/>
          <author fullname="D. Mayer" initials="D." surname="Mayer"/>
          <date month="March" year="2016"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>The Network Time Protocol version 4 (NTPv4) defines the optional usage of extension fields. An extension field, as defined in RFC 5905, is an optional field that resides at the end of the NTP header and that can be used to add optional capabilities or additional information that is not conveyed in the standard NTP header. This document updates RFC 5905 by clarifying some points regarding NTP extension fields and their usage with Message Authentication Codes (MACs).</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7822"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7822"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8126">
        <front>
          <title>Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs</title>
          <author fullname="M. Cotton" initials="M." surname="Cotton"/>
          <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
          <author fullname="T. Narten" initials="T." surname="Narten"/>
          <date month="June" year="2017"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values in these fields do not have conflicting uses and to promote interoperability, their allocations are often coordinated by a central record keeper. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).</t>
            <t>To make assignments in a given registry prudently, guidance describing the conditions under which new values should be assigned, as well as when and how modifications to existing values can be made, is needed. This document defines a framework for the documentation of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that the provided guidance for the IANA Considerations is clear and addresses the various issues that are likely in the operation of a registry.</t>
            <t>This is the third edition of this document; it obsoletes RFC 5226.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="26"/>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8126"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8126"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8573">
        <front>
          <title>Message Authentication Code for the Network Time Protocol</title>
          <author fullname="A. Malhotra" initials="A." surname="Malhotra"/>
          <author fullname="S. Goldberg" initials="S." surname="Goldberg"/>
          <date month="June" year="2019"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>The Network Time Protocol (NTP), as described in RFC 5905, states that NTP packets should be authenticated by appending NTP data to a 128-bit key and hashing the result with MD5 to obtain a 128-bit tag. This document deprecates MD5-based authentication, which is considered too weak, and recommends the use of AES-CMAC as described in RFC 4493 as a replacement.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8573"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8573"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8915">
        <front>
          <title>Network Time Security for the Network Time Protocol</title>
          <author fullname="D. Franke" initials="D." surname="Franke"/>
          <author fullname="D. Sibold" initials="D." surname="Sibold"/>
          <author fullname="K. Teichel" initials="K." surname="Teichel"/>
          <author fullname="M. Dansarie" initials="M." surname="Dansarie"/>
          <author fullname="R. Sundblad" initials="R." surname="Sundblad"/>
          <date month="September" year="2020"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This memo specifies Network Time Security (NTS), a mechanism for using Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) to provide cryptographic security for the client-server mode of the Network Time Protocol (NTP).</t>
            <t>NTS is structured as a suite of two loosely coupled sub-protocols. The first (NTS Key Establishment (NTS-KE)) handles initial authentication and key establishment over TLS. The second (NTS Extension Fields for NTPv4) handles encryption and authentication during NTP time synchronization via extension fields in the NTP packets, and holds all required state only on the client via opaque cookies.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8915"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8915"/>
      </reference>
    </references>
  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>
