From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Thu Jan 5 07:46:04 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C599129B7C for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 07:46:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1] 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 70vsaZ0sZFLR for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 07:46:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A5B4129B75 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 07:46:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [10.224.90.243]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6190786DB17 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 15:45:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (fortinet.ntp.org [10.224.90.254]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E45A386D55F for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 14:57:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1cP9Tk-000Jnr-Nm for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Thu, 05 Jan 2017 14:57:28 +0000 Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22177129A33; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 06:57:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.40.3 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148362824009.20661.15228156083481528905.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 06:57:20 -0800 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 4.31.198.44 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: internet-drafts@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: [ntpwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ntp-mac-00.txt X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Network Time Protocol of the IETF. Title : Message Authentication Code for the Network Time Protocol Authors : Aanchal Malhotra Sharon Goldberg Filename : draft-ietf-ntp-mac-00.txt Pages : 4 Date : 2016-11-23 Abstract: RFC 5905 [RFC5905] states that Network Time Protocol (NTP) packets should be authenticated by appending a 128-bit key to the NTP data, and hashing the result with MD5 to obtain a 128-bit tag. This document deprecates the authentication of NTP packets with MD5 and recommends the use of AES-CMAC [RFC4493] as a replacement. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-mac/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp-mac-00 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sun Jan 8 23:41:11 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15A51129B94 for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2017 23:41:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] 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 xwELXQu_Oi5l for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2017 23:41:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50181129B8A for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2017 23:41:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [10.224.90.243]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C442686DB11 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 07:41:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (fortinet.ntp.org [10.224.90.254]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDC5C86D4A6 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 07:39:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de ([194.94.155.51]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1cQUXn-000Non-4S for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Mon, 09 Jan 2017 07:39:10 +0000 Received: from rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id DA4DCA23B for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 08:39:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.5.51]) by rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 689C0485C for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 08:39:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 09 Jan 2017 08:39:00 +0100 Message-Id: <58734C22020000A100023E2F@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 14.2.1 Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 08:38:58 +0100 From: "Ulrich Windl" To: References: <148362824009.20661.15228156083481528905.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <148362824009.20661.15228156083481528905.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 194.94.155.51 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: [ntpwg] Antw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ntp-mac-00.txt X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" >>> schrieb am 05.01.2017 um 15:57 in Nachricht <148362824009.20661.15228156083481528905.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Network Time Protocol of the IETF. > > Title : Message Authentication Code for the Network Time > Protocol What about "Using AES-CMAC as Authentication Code for the Network Time Protocol " instead? > Authors : Aanchal Malhotra > Sharon Goldberg > Filename : draft-ietf-ntp-mac-00.txt > Pages : 4 > Date : 2016-11-23 > > Abstract: > RFC 5905 [RFC5905] states that Network Time Protocol (NTP) packets > should be authenticated by appending a 128-bit key to the NTP data, > and hashing the result with MD5 to obtain a 128-bit tag. This > document deprecates the authentication of NTP packets with MD5 and > recommends the use of AES-CMAC [RFC4493] as a replacement. I would revert the sense to something like (roughly) "This draft specifies the use of AES-CMAC as an additional authentication method for ..., allowing to replace the older MD5-based authentication method which is condidered to be too weak meanwhile (at the time of writing)" Ulrich > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-mac/ > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp-mac-00 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > ntpwg mailing list > ntpwg@lists.ntp.org > http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Mon Jan 9 12:10:31 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A009B1295A1 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 12:10:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] 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 WvKGe_0Ao-Zo for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 12:10:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EA36129592 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 12:10:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [10.224.90.243]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED45D86DB0B for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 20:10:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (fortinet.ntp.org [10.224.90.254]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72EDB86D4A6 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 20:09:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1cQgFp-000BdN-Ua for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Mon, 09 Jan 2017 20:09:27 +0000 Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FE8F1295A1; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 12:09:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "\"IETF Meeting Session Request Tool\"" To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.40.3 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148399255732.25006.85677279412143311.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 12:09:17 -0800 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 4.31.198.44 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: session_request_developers@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: [ntpwg] ntp - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 98 X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: ntp-chairs@ietf.org, ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Karen O'Donoghue, a Chair of the ntp working group. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: Network Time Protocol Area Name: Internet Area Session Requester: Karen O'Donoghue Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 2 Hours Number of Attendees: 30 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: oauth sacm saag cfrg tls trans ippm bmwg Special Requests: Please schedule jointly with the tictoc wg. --------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Tue Jan 10 06:56:57 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DBED129D11 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 06:56:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] 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 fIB1F6zPxWtj for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 06:56:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95397129CBA for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 06:56:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [10.224.90.243]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A438086DB09 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 14:56:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (fortinet.ntp.org [10.224.90.254]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 148A286D9B3 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 14:55:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from chessie.everett.org ([66.220.13.234]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1cQxpg-0003lG-E3 for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 14:55:36 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chessie.everett.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 46B1DB83D for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 14:55:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.2.64.166] (unknown [198.22.153.36]) by chessie.everett.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B0C60B838; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 14:55:18 +0000 (UTC) References: <148362824009.20661.15228156083481528905.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <58734C22020000A100023E2F@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> To: Ulrich Windl , ntpwg@lists.ntp.org From: Danny Mayer Message-ID: <15953858-6cce-e3a9-ab5a-60e45ae81ba8@pdmconsulting.net> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:55:17 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <58734C22020000A100023E2F@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> X-DSPAM-Result: Innocent X-DSPAM-Processed: Tue Jan 10 14:55:18 2017 X-DSPAM-Confidence: 0.9899 X-DSPAM-Probability: 0.0000 X-DSPAM-Signature: 6384,5874f5d613361091710293 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 66.220.13.234 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mayer@pdmconsulting.net X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Antw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ntp-mac-00.txt X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: mayer@pdmconsulting.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" On 1/9/2017 2:38 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote: >>>> schrieb am 05.01.2017 um 15:57 in Nachricht > <148362824009.20661.15228156083481528905.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>: > >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. >> This draft is a work item of the Network Time Protocol of the IETF. >> >> Title : Message Authentication Code for the Network Time >> Protocol > > What about "Using AES-CMAC as Authentication Code for the Network Time Protocol " instead? > That would be a bad idea. You don't want to tie an RFC about the MAC to a specific protocol. This is about the MAC and not the algorithm. > >> Authors : Aanchal Malhotra >> Sharon Goldberg >> Filename : draft-ietf-ntp-mac-00.txt >> Pages : 4 >> Date : 2016-11-23 >> >> Abstract: >> RFC 5905 [RFC5905] states that Network Time Protocol (NTP) packets >> should be authenticated by appending a 128-bit key to the NTP data, >> and hashing the result with MD5 to obtain a 128-bit tag. This >> document deprecates the authentication of NTP packets with MD5 and >> recommends the use of AES-CMAC [RFC4493] as a replacement. > > I would revert the sense to something like (roughly) "This draft specifies the use of AES-CMAC as an additional authentication method for ..., allowing to replace the older MD5-based authentication method which is condidered to be too weak meanwhile (at the time of writing)" > I disagree. This is a much better wording as is. Danny > Ulrich > > >> >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-mac/ >> >> There's also a htmlized version available at: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp-mac-00 >> >> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ntpwg mailing list >> ntpwg@lists.ntp.org >> http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ntpwg mailing list > ntpwg@lists.ntp.org > http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg > > _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Tue Jan 10 07:10:04 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A8C412A00C for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 07:10:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] 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 EV7j-phNFIpn for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 07:10:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A00D712951F for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 07:10:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [10.224.90.243]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C9C586DAB6 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 15:10:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (fortinet.ntp.org [10.224.90.254]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E18F386D9B3 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 15:09:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rrzmta2.uni-regensburg.de ([194.94.155.52]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1cQy2p-0003xy-Oo for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 15:09:11 +0000 Received: from rrzmta2.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id DB11E72CF0 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:09:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.5.51]) by rrzmta2.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F0BA71EB1 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:09:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:09:01 +0100 Message-Id: <5875071A020000A100023E73@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 14.2.1 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:08:58 +0100 From: "Ulrich Windl" To: References: <148362824009.20661.15228156083481528905.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <58734C22020000A100023E2F@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> <15953858-6cce-e3a9-ab5a-60e45ae81ba8@pdmconsulting.net> In-Reply-To: <15953858-6cce-e3a9-ab5a-60e45ae81ba8@pdmconsulting.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 194.94.155.52 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: [ntpwg] Antw: Re: Antw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ntp-mac-00.txt X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" >>> Danny Mayer schrieb am 10.01.2017 um 15:55 in Nachricht <15953858-6cce-e3a9-ab5a-60e45ae81ba8@pdmconsulting.net>: > On 1/9/2017 2:38 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote: >>>>> schrieb am 05.01.2017 um 15:57 in Nachricht >> <148362824009.20661.15228156083481528905.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>: >> >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. >>> This draft is a work item of the Network Time Protocol of the IETF. >>> >>> Title : Message Authentication Code for the Network Time >>> Protocol >> >> What about "Using AES-CMAC as Authentication Code for the Network Time > Protocol " instead? >> > > That would be a bad idea. You don't want to tie an RFC about the MAC to > a specific protocol. This is about the MAC and not the algorithm. But the abstract says the RFC is exactly about that specific MAC. NTP is also using a MAC (a different one), so the title is very generic IMHO. Assume you are just browing titles to find something you are looking for... > >> >>> Authors : Aanchal Malhotra >>> Sharon Goldberg >>> Filename : draft-ietf-ntp-mac-00.txt >>> Pages : 4 >>> Date : 2016-11-23 >>> >>> Abstract: >>> RFC 5905 [RFC5905] states that Network Time Protocol (NTP) packets >>> should be authenticated by appending a 128-bit key to the NTP data, >>> and hashing the result with MD5 to obtain a 128-bit tag. This >>> document deprecates the authentication of NTP packets with MD5 and >>> recommends the use of AES-CMAC [RFC4493] as a replacement. >> >> I would revert the sense to something like (roughly) "This draft specifies > the use of AES-CMAC as an additional authentication method for ..., allowing > to replace the older MD5-based authentication method which is condidered to be > too weak meanwhile (at the time of writing)" >> > > I disagree. This is a much better wording as is. OK, I get accustomed to such documents... > > Danny > >> Ulrich >> >> >>> >>> >>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-mac/ >>> >>> There's also a htmlized version available at: >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp-mac-00 >>> >>> >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission >>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ntpwg mailing list >>> ntpwg@lists.ntp.org >>> http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ntpwg mailing list >> ntpwg@lists.ntp.org >> http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg >> >> _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Mon Jan 16 05:13:05 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA71B129431 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 05:13:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] 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 jXAa6TyDEGni for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 05:13:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 491AD1299ED for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 05:13:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [10.224.90.243]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DED0286DAB5 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:13:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (fortinet.ntp.org [10.224.90.254]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4364386D427 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:11:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com ([67.231.148.174] helo=mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1cT74Y-0000v4-35; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:11:51 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0045849.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v0GD9gwO017510; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 05:11:38 -0800 Received: from il-exch01.marvell.com ([199.203.130.101]) by mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 27yj7sj1bn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 16 Jan 2017 05:11:38 -0800 Received: from IL-EXCH01.marvell.com (10.4.102.220) by IL-EXCH01.marvell.com (10.4.102.220) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:11:35 +0200 Received: from IL-EXCH01.marvell.com ([fe80::5d63:81cd:31e2:fc36]) by IL-EXCH01.marvell.com ([fe80::5d63:81cd:31e2:fc36%20]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:11:34 +0200 From: Tal Mizrahi To: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" , Harlan Stenn , Danny Mayer Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHSPfiHKYTP/HvRcUKZr8SuNemj8qE7N/Gg Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:11:34 +0000 Message-ID: <516724740cb342cc8abae376fd171b93@IL-EXCH01.marvell.com> References: <147907407288.5582.14583315298514845251.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <147907407288.5582.14583315298514845251.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [199.203.130.14] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-01-16_11:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1612050000 definitions=main-1701160200 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 67.231.148.174 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: mayer@ntp.org, ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: talmi@marvell.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] New Version Notification for draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields-00.txt X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" Hi Harlan, All, One of the main issues that is proposed in this draft is to redefine the field in the extension field header. In RFC5905 and in RFC7822, the is defined as a 16-bit value that defines the extension field type. An IANA registry is defined for this field, allowing values in the range 0-65535. Draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields proposes to redefine the , as follows: 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |R|E|O|M| Code | Primary Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I believe there are two possible options with respect to the proposal: (1) Adopt this proposal. That would mean that a new draft cannot ask IANA to assign an arbitrary Field Type value in the range 0-65535. I believe that would mean we would have to update the IANA registry, and only allow IANA to allocate values for the , i.e., in the ranges 0-255. Or (2) Continue working as defined so far: the Field Type is 16-bits long, and an RFC can request any set of values in the range 0-65535. Thus, every RFC can define sub-fields in a way that is consistent with its IANA-assigned values. I believe that is how it worked in RFC5906 and in RFC7821. Personally, I would recommend to go with option (2). I would be happy to hear people's opinion about this. Cheers, Tal. >-----Original Message----- >From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] >Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 11:55 PM >To: Tal Mizrahi; Harlan Stenn; Danny Mayer >Subject: New Version Notification for draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields-00.txt > > >A new version of I-D, draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields-00.txt >has been successfully submitted by Harlan Stenn and posted to the IETF >repository. > >Name: draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields >Revision: 00 >Title: Network Time Protocol Version 4 (NTPv4) Extension Fields >Document date: 2016-11-13 >Group: Individual Submission >Pages: 8 >URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields- >00.txt >Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields/ >Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields-00 > > >Abstract: > Network Time Protocol version 4 (NTPv4) defines the optional usage of > extension fields. An extension field, as defined in RFC 5905 > [RFC5905], resides after the end of the NTP header, and supplies > optional capabilities or information that is not conveyed in the > standard NTP header. This document updates RFC 5905 [RFC5905] by > clarifying some points regarding NTP extension fields and their usage > with legacy Message Authentication Codes (MACs). > > With the adoption of this update, the authors recommend rescinding > [Err3627]. > > > > >Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until >the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > >The IETF Secretariat _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Mon Jan 16 05:33:24 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A89CC129476 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 05:33:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] 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 UTS3AjwEBmRu for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 05:33:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22BAD12896F for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 05:33:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [10.224.90.243]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D30DC86DAA7 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:33:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from stenn.ntp.org (fortinet.ntp.org [10.224.90.254]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EABB286D427 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:32:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.sol.net ([127.0.0.1] helo=stenn.ntp.org) by stenn.ntp.org with esmtp (Exim 4.87_1 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1cT7Of-000PNn-Tt; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:32:29 +0000 From: Harlan Stenn To: Tal Mizrahi In-reply-to: <516724740cb342cc8abae376fd171b93@IL-EXCH01.marvell.com> References: <147907407288.5582.14583315298514845251.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <516724740cb342cc8abae376fd171b93@IL-EXCH01.marvell.com> Comments: In-reply-to Tal Mizrahi message dated "Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:11:34 +0000." 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) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:32:29 +0000 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [ntpwg] New Version Notification for draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields-00.txt X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" , Harlan Stenn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" Tal Mizrahi writes: > Hi Harlan, All, > > One of the main issues that is proposed in this draft is to redefine the ld Type> field in the extension field header. > In RFC5905 and in RFC7822, the is defined as a 16-bit value that > defines the extension field type. An IANA registry is defined for this field > , allowing values in the range 0-65535. > > Draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields proposes to redefine the , as fo > llows: > 0 1 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |R|E|O|M| Code | Primary Type | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > I believe there are two possible options with respect to the proposal: > (1) Adopt this proposal. That would mean that a new draft cannot ask IANA to > assign an arbitrary Field Type value in the range 0-65535. I believe that wou > ld mean we would have to update the IANA registry, and only allow IANA to all > ocate values for the , i.e., in the ranges 0-255. > Or > (2) Continue working as defined so far: the Field Type is 16-bits long, and a > n RFC can request any set of values in the range 0-65535. Thus, every RFC can > define sub-fields in a way that is consistent with its IANA-assigned values. > I believe that is how it worked in RFC5906 and in RFC7821. > > Personally, I would recommend to go with option (2). > > I would be happy to hear people's opinion about this. Tal, What you propose breaks autokey. Is there some reason to believe that IANA doesn't like it when we recommend a number for this field? Where is the benefit to IANA saying in a document that an EF will be assigne some number between 0-255, and then people will have to look somewhere else to see, for example, the needed values for the "code" and "flag bits"? If IANA doesn't object to our offering recommended assignments (I've been doing this for my proposals and I haven't received any feedback at all. If IANA wants to be able to assign numbers for EF types, they must limit themselves to the 3-255 range. This will also cause problem down the road, as we need to test these things out and it's a PITA to implement, say, "numbers in the 128-255 range are for testing, but production numbers weill be in the 3-127 range", and then implementations will have to support 2 numbers for the same EF type. Ugh. H -- > >-----Original Message----- > >From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] > >Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 11:55 PM > >To: Tal Mizrahi; Harlan Stenn; Danny Mayer > >Subject: New Version Notification for draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields-00.tx > t > > > > > >A new version of I-D, draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields-00.txt > >has been successfully submitted by Harlan Stenn and posted to the IETF > >repository. > > > >Name: draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields > >Revision: 00 > >Title: Network Time Protocol Version 4 (NTPv4) Extension Field > s > >Document date: 2016-11-13 > >Group: Individual Submission > >Pages: 8 > >URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stenn-ntp-extensi > on-fields- > >00.txt > >Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stenn-ntp-extension-f > ields/ > >Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields > -00 > > > > > >Abstract: > > Network Time Protocol version 4 (NTPv4) defines the optional usage of > > extension fields. An extension field, as defined in RFC 5905 > > [RFC5905], resides after the end of the NTP header, and supplies > > optional capabilities or information that is not conveyed in the > > standard NTP header. This document updates RFC 5905 [RFC5905] by > > clarifying some points regarding NTP extension fields and their usage > > with legacy Message Authentication Codes (MACs). > > > > With the adoption of this update, the authors recommend rescinding > > [Err3627]. > > > > > > > > > >Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until > >the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > > >The IETF Secretariat > > _______________________________________________ > ntpwg mailing list > ntpwg@lists.ntp.org > http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg > _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Mon Jan 16 05:37:14 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDCAB12896F for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 05:37:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, BODY_URI_ONLY=1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] 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 TSrNIgL8i9GO for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 05:37:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8846C129436 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 05:37:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [10.224.90.243]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EBDA86DAE5 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:37:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from stenn.ntp.org (fortinet.ntp.org [10.224.90.254]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 753CC86D427 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:34:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.sol.net ([127.0.0.1] helo=stenn.ntp.org) by stenn.ntp.org with esmtp (Exim 4.87_1 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1cT7Qn-000POZ-Al; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:34:41 +0000 From: Harlan Stenn To: Tal Mizrahi In-reply-to: <516724740cb342cc8abae376fd171b93@IL-EXCH01.marvell.com> References: <147907407288.5582.14583315298514845251.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <516724740cb342cc8abae376fd171b93@IL-EXCH01.marvell.com> Comments: In-reply-to Tal Mizrahi message dated "Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:11:34 +0000." 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) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:34:41 +0000 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [ntpwg] New Version Notification for draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields-00.txt X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" , Harlan Stenn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" One more thing, I don't mean to pick on autokey. Yes, it's old and we want to deprecate it. But I think we want to "color inside the lines" and not cause additional breakage. -- Harlan Stenn http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member! _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Mon Jan 16 05:44:55 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA18D120725 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 05:44:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] 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 HnG01U_Hmhqz for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 05:44:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 327C112942F for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 05:44:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [10.224.90.243]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D88EA86DB20 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:44:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (fortinet.ntp.org [10.224.90.254]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3C8586D427 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:43:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com ([67.231.156.173]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1cT7Zb-0001HB-9K; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:43:55 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0045851.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v0GDe2ai010364; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 05:43:43 -0800 Received: from il-exch01.marvell.com ([199.203.130.101]) by mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 27ymcnr9x7-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 16 Jan 2017 05:43:43 -0800 Received: from IL-EXCH01.marvell.com (10.4.102.220) by IL-EXCH01.marvell.com (10.4.102.220) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:43:40 +0200 Received: from IL-EXCH01.marvell.com ([fe80::5d63:81cd:31e2:fc36]) by IL-EXCH01.marvell.com ([fe80::5d63:81cd:31e2:fc36%20]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:43:40 +0200 From: Tal Mizrahi To: Harlan Stenn Thread-Topic: [EXT] Re: [ntpwg] New Version Notification for draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHSPfiHKYTP/HvRcUKZr8SuNemj8qE7N/GggAAkjYCAACH4YA== Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:43:40 +0000 Message-ID: <70c3028099464a4e802a1dc61de86ff5@IL-EXCH01.marvell.com> References: <147907407288.5582.14583315298514845251.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <516724740cb342cc8abae376fd171b93@IL-EXCH01.marvell.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [199.203.130.14] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-01-16_11:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1612050000 definitions=main-1701160207 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 67.231.156.173 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: mayer@ntp.org, stenn@ntp.org, ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: talmi@marvell.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] [EXT] Re: New Version Notification for draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields-00.txt X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" , Harlan Stenn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" Hi Harlan, Thanks for the quick response. >What you propose breaks autokey. > I recommend option (2). I don't think (2) breaks Autokey. I believe (2) is consistent with Autokey. >Where is the benefit to IANA saying in a document that an EF will be assigne some >number between 0-255, and then people will have to look somewhere else to >see, for example, the needed values for the "code" and "flag bits"? The thing is that the flag bits are *indicators*. They have a meaning, unlike IANA-assigned values, which are simply arbitrarily assigned *identifiers*. Here is an example to make my point: RFC7821 has been assigned the field type value 0x2005. Now if we adopt option (1), it means that no one will be able to use 0x0005, or 0x4005, or 0x8005. But there is nothing in the IANA registry that documents this limitation, so it doesn't seem to make sense to me. Cheers, Tal. >-----Original Message----- >From: Harlan Stenn [mailto:stenn@ntp.org] >Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 3:32 PM >To: Tal Mizrahi >Cc: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Harlan Stenn; Danny Mayer >Subject: [EXT] Re: [ntpwg] New Version Notification for draft-stenn-ntp- >extension-fields-00.txt > >External Email > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Tal Mizrahi writes: >> Hi Harlan, All, >> >> One of the main issues that is proposed in this draft is to redefine >> the field in the extension field header. >> In RFC5905 and in RFC7822, the is defined as a 16-bit >> value that defines the extension field type. An IANA registry is >> defined for this field , allowing values in the range 0-65535. >> >> Draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields proposes to redefine the > Type>, as fo >> llows: >> 0 1 >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> |R|E|O|M| Code | Primary Type | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> >> I believe there are two possible options with respect to the proposal: >> (1) Adopt this proposal. That would mean that a new draft cannot ask >> IANA to assign an arbitrary Field Type value in the range 0-65535. I >> believe that wou ld mean we would have to update the IANA registry, >> and only allow IANA to all ocate values for the , i.e., in the >ranges 0-255. >> Or >> (2) Continue working as defined so far: the Field Type is 16-bits >> long, and a n RFC can request any set of values in the range 0-65535. >> Thus, every RFC can define sub-fields in a way that is consistent with its IANA- >assigned values. >> I believe that is how it worked in RFC5906 and in RFC7821. >> >> Personally, I would recommend to go with option (2). >> >> I would be happy to hear people's opinion about this. > >Tal, > >What you propose breaks autokey. > >Is there some reason to believe that IANA doesn't like it when we recommend a >number for this field? > >Where is the benefit to IANA saying in a document that an EF will be assigne some >number between 0-255, and then people will have to look somewhere else to >see, for example, the needed values for the "code" and "flag bits"? > >If IANA doesn't object to our offering recommended assignments (I've been >doing this for my proposals and I haven't received any feedback at all. > >If IANA wants to be able to assign numbers for EF types, they must limit >themselves to the 3-255 range. This will also cause problem down the road, as >we need to test these things out and it's a PITA to implement, say, "numbers in >the 128-255 range are for testing, but production numbers weill be in the 3-127 >range", and then implementations will have to support 2 numbers for the same >EF type. Ugh. > >H >-- > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] >> >Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 11:55 PM >> >To: Tal Mizrahi; Harlan Stenn; Danny Mayer >> >Subject: New Version Notification for >> >draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields-00.tx >> t >> > >> > >> >A new version of I-D, draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields-00.txt >> >has been successfully submitted by Harlan Stenn and posted to the >> >IETF repository. >> > >> >Name: draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields >> >Revision: 00 >> >Title: Network Time Protocol Version 4 (NTPv4) Extension Field >> s >> >Document date: 2016-11-13 >> >Group: Individual Submission >> >Pages: 8 >> >URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stenn-ntp-extensi >> on-fields- >> >00.txt >> >Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stenn-ntp-extension-f >> ields/ >> >Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields >> -00 >> > >> > >> >Abstract: >> > Network Time Protocol version 4 (NTPv4) defines the optional usage of >> > extension fields. An extension field, as defined in RFC 5905 >> > [RFC5905], resides after the end of the NTP header, and supplies >> > optional capabilities or information that is not conveyed in the >> > standard NTP header. This document updates RFC 5905 [RFC5905] by >> > clarifying some points regarding NTP extension fields and their usage >> > with legacy Message Authentication Codes (MACs). >> > >> > With the adoption of this update, the authors recommend rescinding >> > [Err3627]. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >> >submission >> until >> >the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >> > >> >The IETF Secretariat >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ntpwg mailing list >> ntpwg@lists.ntp.org >> http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg >> _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Mon Jan 16 05:53:49 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C7B5129448 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 05:53:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] 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 eIX3pCu_yTg6 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 05:53:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0898126B6D for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 05:53:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [10.224.90.243]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E95486DB23 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:53:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (fortinet.ntp.org [10.224.90.254]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 199CF86D427 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:51:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from chessie.everett.org ([66.220.13.234]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1cT7gk-0001Lv-TF for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:51:20 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chessie.everett.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CB9FAB813 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:51:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.66.2.3] (96-41-177-107.dhcp.mdfd.or.charter.com [96.41.177.107]) by chessie.everett.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6E5F5B80C; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:51:09 +0000 (UTC) Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Harlan Stenn X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14C92) In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 05:51:08 -0800 Message-Id: <792BFC99-898D-4C0D-8A05-D450C2B37ECE@nwtime.org> References: <147907407288.5582.14583315298514845251.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <516724740cb342cc8abae376fd171b93@IL-EXCH01.marvell.com> To: Harlan Stenn X-DSPAM-Result: Innocent X-DSPAM-Processed: Mon Jan 16 13:51:09 2017 X-DSPAM-Confidence: 0.9899 X-DSPAM-Probability: 0.0000 X-DSPAM-Signature: 6384,587ccfcd13361899361461 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 66.220.13.234 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: stenn@nwtime.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] New Version Notification for draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields-00.txt X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" And to be clear, autokey (5906) uses field type 2, has 9 code values, and uses the R and E flag bits. It requests that codes 0-7 (as I recall) be reserved for future autokey versions and I ignore this because it's clear we're not planning any more autokey versions. So my draft simply extends current behavior. Sent from my iPhone - please excuse brevity and typos > On Jan 16, 2017, at 5:34 AM, Harlan Stenn wrote: > > One more thing, I don't mean to pick on autokey. Yes, it's old and we > want to deprecate it. But I think we want to "color inside the lines" > and not cause additional breakage. > -- > Harlan Stenn > http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member! > _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Mon Jan 16 06:24:40 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F0DB129503 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 06:24:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] 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 nXwgBjEsgAsG for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 06:24:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 929F21294C2 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 06:24:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [10.224.90.243]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8180386DB11 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:24:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (fortinet.ntp.org [10.224.90.254]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE6A486D58E for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:18:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com ([67.231.148.174] helo=mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1cT86z-0001h2-7Y; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:18:26 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0045849.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v0GE4VIV017943; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 06:18:05 -0800 Received: from il-exch01.marvell.com ([199.203.130.101]) by mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 27yj7sjbqe-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 16 Jan 2017 06:18:05 -0800 Received: from IL-EXCH01.marvell.com (10.4.102.220) by IL-EXCH01.marvell.com (10.4.102.220) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:18:02 +0200 Received: from IL-EXCH01.marvell.com ([fe80::5d63:81cd:31e2:fc36]) by IL-EXCH01.marvell.com ([fe80::5d63:81cd:31e2:fc36%20]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:18:02 +0200 From: Tal Mizrahi To: Harlan Stenn , Harlan Stenn Thread-Topic: [EXT] Re: [ntpwg] New Version Notification for draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHSPfiHKYTP/HvRcUKZr8SuNemj8qE7N/GggAAlK4CAAASYAIAAJ+PQ Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:18:01 +0000 Message-ID: References: <147907407288.5582.14583315298514845251.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <516724740cb342cc8abae376fd171b93@IL-EXCH01.marvell.com> <792BFC99-898D-4C0D-8A05-D450C2B37ECE@nwtime.org> In-Reply-To: <792BFC99-898D-4C0D-8A05-D450C2B37ECE@nwtime.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [199.203.130.14] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-01-16_11:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1612050000 definitions=main-1701160212 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 67.231.148.174 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: mayer@ntp.org, stenn@ntp.org, ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: talmi@marvell.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] [EXT] Re: New Version Notification for draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields-00.txt X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" Hi Harlan, >And to be clear, autokey (5906) uses field type 2, has 9 code values, and uses the >R and E flag bits. It requests that codes 0-7 (as I recall) be reserved for future >autokey versions Right, and the extension field IANA registry has assigned all the possible values that can use codes 0-9 for =0x2. So RFC 5906 is currently consistent with option (2), which I recommend to go for. Just a reminder, option 2 is: >> (2) Continue working as defined so far: the Field Type is 16-bits >> long, and an RFC can request any set of values in the range 0-65535. >> Thus, every RFC can define sub-fields in a way that is consistent >> with its IANA- >assigned values. >> I believe that is how it worked in RFC5906 and in RFC7821. Cheers, Tal. >-----Original Message----- >From: Harlan Stenn [mailto:stenn@nwtime.org] >Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 3:51 PM >To: Harlan Stenn >Cc: Tal Mizrahi; ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Danny Mayer >Subject: [EXT] Re: [ntpwg] New Version Notification for draft-stenn-ntp- >extension-fields-00.txt > >External Email > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >And to be clear, autokey (5906) uses field type 2, has 9 code values, and uses the >R and E flag bits. It requests that codes 0-7 (as I recall) be reserved for future >autokey versions and I ignore this because it's clear we're not planning any more >autokey versions. So my draft simply extends current behavior. > >Sent from my iPhone - please excuse brevity and typos > >> On Jan 16, 2017, at 5:34 AM, Harlan Stenn wrote: >> >> One more thing, I don't mean to pick on autokey. Yes, it's old and we >> want to deprecate it. But I think we want to "color inside the lines" >> and not cause additional breakage. >> -- >> Harlan Stenn >> http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member! >> > _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg