From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Tue May 2 14:12:06 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 E72E712EABC for ; Tue, 2 May 2017 14:12:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.3 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UKyi5FvCcS8A for ; Tue, 2 May 2017 14:12:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6075129461 for ; Tue, 2 May 2017 14:09:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2ACF86DB09 for ; Tue, 2 May 2017 21:09:19 +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 DFFA386D55E for ; Tue, 2 May 2017 21:09:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay75.bu.edu ([128.197.228.175]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d5f2Y-000JyD-Qq for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Tue, 02 May 2017 21:09:06 +0000 X-Envelope-From: aanchal4@bu.edu Received: from mail-oi0-f70.google.com (mail-oi0-f70.google.com [209.85.218.70]) by relay75.bu.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id v42L8i35027096 for ; Tue, 2 May 2017 17:08:45 -0400 Received: by mail-oi0-f70.google.com with SMTP id o7so22059783oia.17 for ; Tue, 02 May 2017 14:08:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FjnFyMLDYn5MdahawIQtyCZo13fMj94QWiunOp51xoI=; b=S9C0YZUo+t1DXcc7P6QRw93grh+mEpDLtKIY6Y14cW0LDBpJW2wwCx088C92XU88ji Zyn+FLPTNW2ieZgpNhZWKX6Zrzji1WHPDYSQwnJ5KqqVqQhBi4h18t7oZlHqNYq8jyAC 5/sAD1RjfVUngwuAGAZX72cz6rcWdsq+oP7JDQxP7IGAgP+fbnmC5hygtvEVCUDCa05O 394IcxhD48NeDwfqgOi1yg9ON60/7exekUi9miEcFywJUTkFl0plv+LdxZZCC3dWcptN rMmm4jX2MOZEUT5stTHbKvnZhCm92CYnyZUid+k4MY9w8z63+URr/Cr9bs7OtdCxSuwR /LHw== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6pyU/tnCHQfvXXD4NYb4pttHFVyKEFWBTCLKspvoT32qRL1TG7 6Pz8B0R46dLDPiy/wwMqjJ0BxCxuo+cFOO1AkZyYq95RZOKEKXiki++koU/Q7CAPAQiwlTQdtKy d61cWbYmSNVXcUZ+02sSu X-Received: by 10.157.4.113 with SMTP id 104mr12511001otc.137.1493759324598; Tue, 02 May 2017 14:08:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.157.4.113 with SMTP id 104mr12510995otc.137.1493759324400; Tue, 02 May 2017 14:08:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.74.156.131 with HTTP; Tue, 2 May 2017 14:08:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Aanchal Malhotra Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 17:08:24 -0400 Message-ID: To: "Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer)" X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 128.197.228.175 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: aanchal4@bu.edu X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Minor correction on draft-aanchal4-ntp-mac 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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1334025237925485878==" Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" --===============1334025237925485878== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11370d1ce941ea054e90f1cc --001a11370d1ce941ea054e90f1cc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Scott, Thanks for pointing this out. I agree that if nonce is reused even once to MAC two different messages with the same key, Poly1305 key can be recovered. I will update the draft-aanchal4-ntp-mac. However, the final MAC-for-NTP recommendation is in this draft (which does not contain this block of text.) Thanks, Aanchal. On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) < sfluhrer@cisco.com> wrote: > The draft claims that > > > > 2. The other three algorithms evaluated here do not suffer from > > nonce reuse vulnerabilities where an adversary can recover the > > authentication key if the nonce is reused just once. > > > > Actually, this is not true; if you use the same nonce to MAC two differen= t > messages with Poly1305(ChaCha20) (specifically, the RFC7539 version), an > attacker will be able to forge (just with that nonce, however since the > attacker gets to select the nonce, that doesn=E2=80=99t help much). > > > > Now, this doesn=E2=80=99t change the conclusion of the draft, which is to= use CMAC > (which I agree with); I just wanted to make sure that, should you > reevaluate things and reconsider Poly1305, that you would be aware of the > issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ntpwg mailing list > ntpwg@lists.ntp.org > http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg > --001a11370d1ce941ea054e90f1cc Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Scott,

Thanks for poin= ting this out. I agree that if nonce is reused even once to MAC two differe= nt messages with the same key, Poly1305 key can be recovered. I will update= the draft-aanchal4-ntp-mac.

However, the final MAC-for-NTP r= ecommendation is in this draft (which does not c= ontain this block of text.)

Thanks,
Aanchal.
=

On Fri,= Apr 28, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) <sfluhrer@cisco.com> wrote:

The draft claims that

=C2=A0

2.=C2=A0 The other three algorithms evaluated here do not suf= fer from

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 nonce reuse vulnerabilit= ies where an adversary can recover the

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 authentication key if th= e nonce is reused just once.

=C2=A0

Actually, this is not true; if you use the same nonc= e to MAC two different messages with Poly1305(ChaCha20) (specifically, the = RFC7539 version), an attacker will be able to forge (just with that nonce, = however since the attacker gets to select the nonce, that doesn=E2=80=99t help much).

=C2=A0

Now, this doesn=E2=80=99t change the conclusion of t= he draft, which is to use CMAC (which I agree with); I just wanted to make = sure that, should you reevaluate things and reconsider Poly1305, that you w= ould be aware of the issues.


_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
ntpwg@lists.ntp.or= g
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg

--001a11370d1ce941ea054e90f1cc-- --===============1334025237925485878== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg --===============1334025237925485878==-- From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Tue May 2 20:25:20 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 CAF2112EAAD for ; Tue, 2 May 2017 20:25:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.909 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=cisco.com 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 JYzzqx1vII8m for ; Tue, 2 May 2017 20:25:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BCA012EAA5 for ; Tue, 2 May 2017 20:23:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8410A86DAB2 for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 03:23:03 +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 1AC2886D55E for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 03:22:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com ([173.37.86.74]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d5ksB-000LUp-Or for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 03:22:49 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12492; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1493781759; x=1494991359; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=PtTMH7gm+l0riTKmNApqcGBjfkafD3UQSAFEfYFBSyQ=; b=gr1O3B5A7Wm5A/eA84Yw96jOScMwtcWf4GmA8fn6Yr6t3cYGw3SGFrtE APSA2EL2eS4VlqmsNKuJCtbRD0B9S9w5b3/4NtNl8VDg3/3jDaWcDcGEV 6IV3cpiVLlf9YRtBhxUFVVYpF90ctGJ2DNf4IPy/CjkKs8x0lMgf21ama 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CJAQA6TAlZ/5ldJa1cDgsBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYJuZ2KBDAeDYYoYkU+QN4U3gg8hAQqFeAIahDY/GAECAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAWsohRUBAQEBAwEBIQpBCxACAQgRBAEBKAMCAgIlAQoUCQgBAQQOBQiKFg6wG?= =?us-ascii?q?IImiyEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdhl+BXoMbhRmCUIJfBZZWhn4Bhxq?= =?us-ascii?q?GI4VKggtVjweId4s5AQ8QOIEKbxVEhjM9dod8gQ0BAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,282,1491264000"; d="scan'208,217";a="230158466" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 May 2017 03:22:38 +0000 Received: from XCH-RTP-007.cisco.com (xch-rtp-007.cisco.com [64.101.220.147]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v433Mbfw016460 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 3 May 2017 03:22:38 GMT Received: from xch-rtp-006.cisco.com (64.101.220.146) by XCH-RTP-007.cisco.com (64.101.220.147) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 2 May 2017 23:22:37 -0400 Received: from xch-rtp-006.cisco.com ([64.101.220.146]) by XCH-RTP-006.cisco.com ([64.101.220.146]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 2 May 2017 23:22:37 -0400 From: "Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer)" To: Aanchal Malhotra Thread-Topic: [ntpwg] Minor correction on draft-aanchal4-ntp-mac Thread-Index: AdLAU1E9dX6J+WqdSQi0JQ4rO3+KdwDVnIEAAASmziA= Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 03:22:37 +0000 Message-ID: <470ea3aa53404dd3a5aa0b3c258786ba@XCH-RTP-006.cisco.com> References: 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: [10.98.2.52] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 173.37.86.74 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: sfluhrer@cisco.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Minor correction on draft-aanchal4-ntp-mac 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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4817430422649351756==" Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" --===============4817430422649351756== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_470ea3aa53404dd3a5aa0b3c258786baXCHRTP006ciscocom_" --_000_470ea3aa53404dd3a5aa0b3c258786baXCHRTP006ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 VG8gYmUgcHJlY2lzZSwgeW91IGRvbuKAmXQgYWN0dWFsbHkgcmVjb3ZlciBhbnkga2V5aW5nIG1h dGVyaWFsLiAgV2hhdCB5b3UgZG8gcmVjb3ZlciBhcmUgdGhlIChyLCBzKSB2YWx1ZXMgY29ycmVz cG9uZGluZyB0byB0aGUgbm9uY2UgKHdoaWNoIGlzIGVub3VnaCBmb3IgYW4gYXR0YWNrZXIgdG8g Zm9yZ2Ugd2l0aCB0aGF0IG5vbmNlKS4NCg0KRnJvbTogQWFuY2hhbCBNYWxob3RyYSBbbWFpbHRv OmFhbmNoYWw0QGJ1LmVkdV0NClNlbnQ6IFR1ZXNkYXksIE1heSAwMiwgMjAxNyA1OjA4IFBNDQpU bzogU2NvdHQgRmx1aHJlciAoc2ZsdWhyZXIpDQpDYzogbnRwd2dAbGlzdHMubnRwLm9yZw0KU3Vi amVjdDogUmU6IFtudHB3Z10gTWlub3IgY29ycmVjdGlvbiBvbiBkcmFmdC1hYW5jaGFsNC1udHAt bWFjDQoNCkhpIFNjb3R0LA0KVGhhbmtzIGZvciBwb2ludGluZyB0aGlzIG91dC4gSSBhZ3JlZSB0 aGF0IGlmIG5vbmNlIGlzIHJldXNlZCBldmVuIG9uY2UgdG8gTUFDIHR3byBkaWZmZXJlbnQgbWVz c2FnZXMgd2l0aCB0aGUgc2FtZSBrZXksIFBvbHkxMzA1IGtleSBjYW4gYmUgcmVjb3ZlcmVkLiBJ IHdpbGwgdXBkYXRlIHRoZSBkcmFmdC1hYW5jaGFsNC1udHAtbWFjLg0KSG93ZXZlciwgdGhlIGZp bmFsIE1BQy1mb3ItTlRQIHJlY29tbWVuZGF0aW9uIGlzIGluIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQ8aHR0cHM6Ly90 b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LWlldGYtbnRwLW1hYy0wMD4gKHdoaWNoIGRvZXMgbm90 IGNvbnRhaW4gdGhpcyBibG9jayBvZiB0ZXh0LikNClRoYW5rcywNCkFhbmNoYWwuDQoNCk9uIEZy aSwgQXByIDI4LCAyMDE3IGF0IDM6MTIgUE0sIFNjb3R0IEZsdWhyZXIgKHNmbHVocmVyKSA8c2Zs dWhyZXJAY2lzY28uY29tPG1haWx0bzpzZmx1aHJlckBjaXNjby5jb20+PiB3cm90ZToNClRoZSBk cmFmdCBjbGFpbXMgdGhhdA0KDQoyLiAgVGhlIG90aGVyIHRocmVlIGFsZ29yaXRobXMgZXZhbHVh dGVkIGhlcmUgZG8gbm90IHN1ZmZlciBmcm9tDQogICAgICAgbm9uY2UgcmV1c2UgdnVsbmVyYWJp bGl0aWVzIHdoZXJlIGFuIGFkdmVyc2FyeSBjYW4gcmVjb3ZlciB0aGUNCiAgICAgICBhdXRoZW50 aWNhdGlvbiBrZXkgaWYgdGhlIG5vbmNlIGlzIHJldXNlZCBqdXN0IG9uY2UuDQoNCkFjdHVhbGx5 LCB0aGlzIGlzIG5vdCB0cnVlOyBpZiB5b3UgdXNlIHRoZSBzYW1lIG5vbmNlIHRvIE1BQyB0d28g ZGlmZmVyZW50IG1lc3NhZ2VzIHdpdGggUG9seTEzMDUoQ2hhQ2hhMjApIChzcGVjaWZpY2FsbHks IHRoZSBSRkM3NTM5IHZlcnNpb24pLCBhbiBhdHRhY2tlciB3aWxsIGJlIGFibGUgdG8gZm9yZ2Ug KGp1c3Qgd2l0aCB0aGF0IG5vbmNlLCBob3dldmVyIHNpbmNlIHRoZSBhdHRhY2tlciBnZXRzIHRv IHNlbGVjdCB0aGUgbm9uY2UsIHRoYXQgZG9lc27igJl0IGhlbHAgbXVjaCkuDQoNCk5vdywgdGhp cyBkb2VzbuKAmXQgY2hhbmdlIHRoZSBjb25jbHVzaW9uIG9mIHRoZSBkcmFmdCwgd2hpY2ggaXMg dG8gdXNlIENNQUMgKHdoaWNoIEkgYWdyZWUgd2l0aCk7IEkganVzdCB3YW50ZWQgdG8gbWFrZSBz dXJlIHRoYXQsIHNob3VsZCB5b3UgcmVldmFsdWF0ZSB0aGluZ3MgYW5kIHJlY29uc2lkZXIgUG9s eTEzMDUsIHRoYXQgeW91IHdvdWxkIGJlIGF3YXJlIG9mIHRoZSBpc3N1ZXMuDQoNCl9fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpudHB3ZyBtYWlsaW5nIGxp c3QNCm50cHdnQGxpc3RzLm50cC5vcmc8bWFpbHRvOm50cHdnQGxpc3RzLm50cC5vcmc+DQpodHRw Oi8vbGlzdHMubnRwLm9yZy9saXN0aW5mby9udHB3Zw0KDQo= --_000_470ea3aa53404dd3a5aa0b3c258786baXCHRTP006ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIg Y29udGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxtZXRhIG5hbWU9IkdlbmVyYXRv ciIgY29udGVudD0iTWljcm9zb2Z0IFdvcmQgMTQgKGZpbHRlcmVkIG1lZGl1bSkiPg0KPHN0eWxl PjwhLS0NCi8qIEZvbnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 Q2FsaWJyaTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDE1IDUgMiAyIDIgNCAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJ e2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OlRhaG9tYTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDExIDYgNCAzIDUgNCA0IDIgNDt9DQpA Zm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJQVCBNb25vIjt9DQovKiBTdHlsZSBEZWZpbml0aW9u cyAqLw0KcC5Nc29Ob3JtYWwsIGxpLk1zb05vcm1hbCwgZGl2Lk1zb05vcm1hbA0KCXttYXJnaW46 MGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OiJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iLCJzZXJpZiI7fQ0KYTpsaW5rLCBzcGFuLk1zb0h5cGVy bGluaw0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJY29sb3I6Ymx1ZTsNCgl0ZXh0LWRlY29y YXRpb246dW5kZXJsaW5lO30NCmE6dmlzaXRlZCwgc3Bhbi5Nc29IeXBlcmxpbmtGb2xsb3dlZA0K CXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJY29sb3I6cHVycGxlOw0KCXRleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlv bjp1bmRlcmxpbmU7fQ0KcC5Nc29BY2V0YXRlLCBsaS5Nc29BY2V0YXRlLCBkaXYuTXNvQWNldGF0 ZQ0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJbXNvLXN0eWxlLWxpbms6IkJhbGxvb24gVGV4 dCBDaGFyIjsNCgltYXJnaW46MGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250LXNp emU6OC4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO30NCnNwYW4uRW1h aWxTdHlsZTE3DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOnBlcnNvbmFsLXJlcGx5Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5 OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQoJY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RDt9DQpzcGFuLkJhbGxvb25U ZXh0Q2hhcg0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtbmFtZToiQmFsbG9vbiBUZXh0IENoYXIiOw0KCW1zby1zdHls ZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCgltc28tc3R5bGUtbGluazoiQmFsbG9vbiBUZXh0IjsNCglmb250LWZh bWlseToiVGFob21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7fQ0KLk1zb0NocERlZmF1bHQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxl LXR5cGU6ZXhwb3J0LW9ubHk7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjt9 DQpAcGFnZSBXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjENCgl7c2l6ZTo4LjVpbiAxMS4waW47DQoJbWFyZ2luOjEuMGlu IDEuMGluIDEuMGluIDEuMGluO30NCmRpdi5Xb3JkU2VjdGlvbjENCgl7cGFnZTpXb3JkU2VjdGlv bjE7fQ0KLS0+PC9zdHlsZT48IS0tW2lmIGd0ZSBtc28gOV0+PHhtbD4NCjxvOnNoYXBlZGVmYXVs dHMgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiIHNwaWRtYXg9IjEwMjYiIC8+DQo8L3htbD48IVtlbmRpZl0tLT48IS0t W2lmIGd0ZSBtc28gOV0+PHhtbD4NCjxvOnNoYXBlbGF5b3V0IHY6ZXh0PSJlZGl0Ij4NCjxvOmlk bWFwIHY6ZXh0PSJlZGl0IiBkYXRhPSIxIiAvPg0KPC9vOnNoYXBlbGF5b3V0PjwveG1sPjwhW2Vu ZGlmXS0tPg0KPC9oZWFkPg0KPGJvZHkgbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIGxpbms9ImJsdWUiIHZsaW5rPSJw dXJwbGUiPg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xIj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwi PjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkm cXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjpibGFjayI+VG8gYmUgcHJlY2lzZSwg eW91IGRvbuKAmXQgYWN0dWFsbHkgcmVjb3ZlciBhbnkga2V5aW5nIG1hdGVyaWFsLiZuYnNwOyBX aGF0IHlvdSBkbyByZWNvdmVyIGFyZSB0aGUgKHIsIHMpIHZhbHVlcyBjb3JyZXNwb25kaW5nIHRv IHRoZSBub25jZSAod2hpY2ggaXMgZW5vdWdoIGZvciBhbiBhdHRhY2tlcg0KIHRvIGZvcmdlIHdp dGggdGhhdCBub25jZSkuPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1h bCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJy aSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7 PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9ImJvcmRlcjpub25lO2JvcmRlci1sZWZ0OnNv bGlkIGJsdWUgMS41cHQ7cGFkZGluZzowaW4gMGluIDBpbiA0LjBwdCI+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBz dHlsZT0iYm9yZGVyOm5vbmU7Ym9yZGVyLXRvcDpzb2xpZCAjQjVDNERGIDEuMHB0O3BhZGRpbmc6 My4wcHQgMGluIDBpbiAwaW4iPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PGI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9 ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7VGFob21hJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3Nh bnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDsiPkZyb206PC9zcGFuPjwvYj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEw LjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtUYWhvbWEmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90 OyI+IEFhbmNoYWwgTWFsaG90cmEgW21haWx0bzphYW5jaGFsNEBidS5lZHVdDQo8YnI+DQo8Yj5T ZW50OjwvYj4gVHVlc2RheSwgTWF5IDAyLCAyMDE3IDU6MDggUE08YnI+DQo8Yj5Ubzo8L2I+IFNj b3R0IEZsdWhyZXIgKHNmbHVocmVyKTxicj4NCjxiPkNjOjwvYj4gbnRwd2dAbGlzdHMubnRwLm9y Zzxicj4NCjxiPlN1YmplY3Q6PC9iPiBSZTogW250cHdnXSBNaW5vciBjb3JyZWN0aW9uIG9uIGRy YWZ0LWFhbmNoYWw0LW50cC1tYWM8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2 Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPGRp dj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiIHN0eWxlPSJtYXJn aW4tYm90dG9tOjEyLjBwdCI+SGkgU2NvdHQsPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxwIGNs YXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiIHN0eWxlPSJtYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOjEyLjBwdCI+VGhhbmtzIGZvciBw b2ludGluZyB0aGlzIG91dC4gSSBhZ3JlZSB0aGF0IGlmIG5vbmNlIGlzIHJldXNlZCBldmVuIG9u Y2UgdG8gTUFDIHR3byBkaWZmZXJlbnQgbWVzc2FnZXMgd2l0aCB0aGUgc2FtZSBrZXksIFBvbHkx MzA1IGtleSBjYW4gYmUgcmVjb3ZlcmVkLiBJIHdpbGwgdXBkYXRlIHRoZSBkcmFmdC1hYW5jaGFs NC1udHAtbWFjLg0KPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwi IHN0eWxlPSJtYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOjEyLjBwdCI+SG93ZXZlciwgdGhlIGZpbmFsIE1BQy1mb3It TlRQIHJlY29tbWVuZGF0aW9uIGlzIGluDQo8YSBocmVmPSJodHRwczovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3Jn L2h0bWwvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1udHAtbWFjLTAwIj50aGlzIGRyYWZ0PC9hPiAod2hpY2ggZG9lcyBu b3QgY29udGFpbiB0aGlzIGJsb2NrIG9mIHRleHQuKTxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8 cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj5UaGFua3MsPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxwIGNs YXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPkFhbmNoYWwuPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxk aXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8 ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+T24gRnJpLCBBcHIgMjgsIDIwMTcgYXQgMzoxMiBQ TSwgU2NvdHQgRmx1aHJlciAoc2ZsdWhyZXIpICZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86c2ZsdWhyZXJA Y2lzY28uY29tIiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+c2ZsdWhyZXJAY2lzY28uY29tPC9hPiZndDsgd3Jv dGU6PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiIHN0 eWxlPSJtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0byI+ VGhlIGRyYWZ0IGNsYWltcyB0aGF0DQo8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3Jt YWwiIHN0eWxlPSJtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6 YXV0byI+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8ZGl2IHN0eWxlPSJib3JkZXI6c29saWQgI0ND Q0NDQyAxLjBwdDtwYWRkaW5nOjguMHB0IDguMHB0IDguMHB0IDguMHB0O2JhY2tncm91bmQtYXR0 YWNobWVudDpzY3JvbGw7YmFja2dyb3VuZC1wb3NpdGlvbi14OjAlO2JhY2tncm91bmQtcG9zaXRp b24teTowJSI+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIiBzdHlsZT0ibXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0 OmF1dG87bWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbTo3LjlwdDtiYWNrZ3JvdW5kOiNGRkZERjU7d29yZC1icmVhazpi cmVhay1hbGwiPg0KPHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4iIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0O2ZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O1BUIE1vbm8mcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2siPjIuJm5ic3A7IFRoZSBvdGhl ciB0aHJlZSBhbGdvcml0aG1zIGV2YWx1YXRlZCBoZXJlIGRvIG5vdCBzdWZmZXIgZnJvbTwvc3Bh bj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiIHN0eWxlPSJtc28tbWFyZ2lu LXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOjcuOXB0O2JhY2tncm91bmQ6I0ZGRkRGNTt3b3Jk LWJyZWFrOmJyZWFrLWFsbDtib3JkZXItY29sb3I6Y3VycmVudGNvbG9yO2JhY2tncm91bmQtYXR0 YWNobWVudDpzY3JvbGw7YmFja2dyb3VuZC1wb3NpdGlvbi14OjAlO2JhY2tncm91bmQtcG9zaXRp b24teTowJSI+DQo8c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTiIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC41cHQ7Zm9udC1m YW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7UFQgTW9ubyZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjpibGFjayI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7 Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IG5vbmNlIHJldXNlIHZ1bG5lcmFiaWxpdGllcyB3aGVyZSBhbiBh ZHZlcnNhcnkgY2FuIHJlY292ZXIgdGhlPC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9 Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206 Ny45cHQ7YmFja2dyb3VuZDojRkZGREY1O3dvcmQtYnJlYWs6YnJlYWstYWxsO2JvcmRlci1jb2xv cjpjdXJyZW50Y29sb3I7YmFja2dyb3VuZC1hdHRhY2htZW50OnNjcm9sbDtiYWNrZ3JvdW5kLXBv c2l0aW9uLXg6MCU7YmFja2dyb3VuZC1wb3NpdGlvbi15OjAlIj4NCjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOIiBz dHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtQVCBNb25vJnF1b3Q7O2Nv bG9yOmJsYWNrIj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsgYXV0aGVudGlj YXRpb24ga2V5IGlmIHRoZSBub25jZSBpcyByZXVzZWQganVzdCBvbmNlLjwvc3Bhbj48bzpwPjwv bzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1zby1tYXJnaW4t dG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvIj4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpw PjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiIHN0eWxlPSJtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0 bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0byI+QWN0dWFsbHksIHRoaXMgaXMgbm90IHRydWU7 IGlmIHlvdSB1c2UgdGhlIHNhbWUgbm9uY2UgdG8gTUFDIHR3byBkaWZmZXJlbnQgbWVzc2FnZXMg d2l0aCBQb2x5MTMwNShDaGFDaGEyMCkgKHNwZWNpZmljYWxseSwgdGhlIFJGQzc1MzkgdmVyc2lv biksIGFuIGF0dGFja2VyIHdpbGwgYmUgYWJsZSB0byBmb3JnZQ0KIChqdXN0IHdpdGggdGhhdCBu b25jZSwgaG93ZXZlciBzaW5jZSB0aGUgYXR0YWNrZXIgZ2V0cyB0byBzZWxlY3QgdGhlIG5vbmNl LCB0aGF0IGRvZXNu4oCZdCBoZWxwIG11Y2gpLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1z b05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9t LWFsdDphdXRvIj4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiIHN0 eWxlPSJtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0byI+ Tm93LCB0aGlzIGRvZXNu4oCZdCBjaGFuZ2UgdGhlIGNvbmNsdXNpb24gb2YgdGhlIGRyYWZ0LCB3 aGljaCBpcyB0byB1c2UgQ01BQyAod2hpY2ggSSBhZ3JlZSB3aXRoKTsgSSBqdXN0IHdhbnRlZCB0 byBtYWtlIHN1cmUgdGhhdCwgc2hvdWxkIHlvdSByZWV2YWx1YXRlIHRoaW5ncyBhbmQgcmVjb25z aWRlciBQb2x5MTMwNSwNCiB0aGF0IHlvdSB3b3VsZCBiZSBhd2FyZSBvZiB0aGUgaXNzdWVzLjxv OnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxicj4N Cl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fPGJyPg0KbnRw d2cgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0PGJyPg0KPGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOm50cHdnQGxpc3RzLm50cC5vcmci IHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj5udHB3Z0BsaXN0cy5udHAub3JnPC9hPjxicj4NCjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0 dHA6Ly9saXN0cy5udHAub3JnL2xpc3RpbmZvL250cHdnIiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+aHR0cDov L2xpc3RzLm50cC5vcmcvbGlzdGluZm8vbnRwd2c8L2E+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4N CjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rp dj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2JvZHk+DQo8L2h0 bWw+DQo= --_000_470ea3aa53404dd3a5aa0b3c258786baXCHRTP006ciscocom_-- --===============4817430422649351756== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg --===============4817430422649351756==-- From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Tue May 2 20:39:36 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 B73D51267BB for ; Tue, 2 May 2017 20:39:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.3 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jffy0kq730f6 for ; Tue, 2 May 2017 20:39:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75618120726 for ; Tue, 2 May 2017 20:37:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BE5286DADC for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 03:37:46 +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 69D2D86DAB5 for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 03:37:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay54.bu.edu ([128.197.228.14]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d5l6X-000OuN-9H for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 03:37:37 +0000 X-Envelope-From: aanchal4@bu.edu Received: from mail-oi0-f72.google.com (mail-oi0-f72.google.com [209.85.218.72]) by relay54.bu.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id v433am0X021879 for ; Tue, 2 May 2017 23:36:48 -0400 Received: by mail-oi0-f72.google.com with SMTP id w205so21691083oif.12 for ; Tue, 02 May 2017 20:36:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LsEA70QQPXzgtE1+JPeILMq7cARtzq6doYFRKu6htwI=; b=K6dXBLSaej4B+sywq+nMBwlprAGDYdzC7OsSoiHLt5RqZU/cgXLZq8rfU1myLlZAjS I7/QJ9/TRq/hRINLsZjMoctrAv8AnM+jsLylSTW9IreslHcfv4tGu+76Y6KHGdOYPSF4 EIgjSmyqriqUF63tzpxyv+/QFBpHIWZdSSUgxbfBMmMT/YwYEqQukBK1ot44wkZGuGQf khKiWfci1qCeQzo2+x923S2phFAEXk5SXMb79Hr89FNBdWx8b9mTh7tZ7BXBNw8wksrU j7pCZ3veaOa6r8eV8gw8/YcjW+odS4vVL1I64UbRWJaaGhJI3UhiSCH0D1UlH/0Sg/53 nUAg== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6ZlGlGFCuZt1KvKPIYw+d0Yd6rGmN64ffLndT0ep2WfpvMMIxG vxrGdcEkWgezMqWcdu/s+AjNqrNP+qWwJQykZ4l1gjBhWJVcKYvxQ54Q+LiHj5GO1T785RoaVqI rpDhbAGfXa9EW9xPyEES9 X-Received: by 10.202.88.214 with SMTP id m205mr10700424oib.159.1493782607779; Tue, 02 May 2017 20:36:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.202.88.214 with SMTP id m205mr10700422oib.159.1493782607590; Tue, 02 May 2017 20:36:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.74.156.131 with HTTP; Tue, 2 May 2017 20:36:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <470ea3aa53404dd3a5aa0b3c258786ba@XCH-RTP-006.cisco.com> References: <470ea3aa53404dd3a5aa0b3c258786ba@XCH-RTP-006.cisco.com> From: Aanchal Malhotra Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 23:36:27 -0400 Message-ID: To: "Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer)" X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 128.197.228.14 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: aanchal4@bu.edu X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Minor correction on draft-aanchal4-ntp-mac 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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4761358262152133936==" Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" --===============4761358262152133936== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d5ca0b28658054e965d0e --001a113d5ca0b28658054e965d0e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Scott, On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) < sfluhrer@cisco.com> wrote: > To be precise, you don=E2=80=99t actually recover any keying material. W= hat you > do recover are the (r, s) values corresponding to the nonce (which is > enough for an attacker to forge with that nonce). > You are right. And that's exactly what I meant by Poly1305 key. Precisely, pair (r,s) is 32-byte unique (corresponding to nonce) key for "Poly1305". r may be a constant value but s should be unique, given the nonce is unique for the same key. However, when s repeats (given the same k and repeated nonce), for two different messages the pair (r,s) is recoverable. And so the attacker can forge with that nonce. > > > *From:* Aanchal Malhotra [mailto:aanchal4@bu.edu] > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 02, 2017 5:08 PM > *To:* Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) > *Cc:* ntpwg@lists.ntp.org > *Subject:* Re: [ntpwg] Minor correction on draft-aanchal4-ntp-mac > > > > Hi Scott, > > Thanks for pointing this out. I agree that if nonce is reused even once t= o > MAC two different messages with the same key, Poly1305 key can be > recovered. I will update the draft-aanchal4-ntp-mac. > > However, the final MAC-for-NTP recommendation is in this draft > (which does not > contain this block of text.) > > Thanks, > > Aanchal. > > > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) < > sfluhrer@cisco.com> wrote: > > The draft claims that > > > > 2. The other three algorithms evaluated here do not suffer from > > nonce reuse vulnerabilities where an adversary can recover the > > authentication key if the nonce is reused just once. > > > > Actually, this is not true; if you use the same nonce to MAC two differen= t > messages with Poly1305(ChaCha20) (specifically, the RFC7539 version), an > attacker will be able to forge (just with that nonce, however since the > attacker gets to select the nonce, that doesn=E2=80=99t help much). > > > > Now, this doesn=E2=80=99t change the conclusion of the draft, which is to= use CMAC > (which I agree with); I just wanted to make sure that, should you > reevaluate things and reconsider Poly1305, that you would be aware of the > issues. > > > _______________________________________________ > ntpwg mailing list > ntpwg@lists.ntp.org > http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg > > > --001a113d5ca0b28658054e965d0e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Scott,

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer)= <sfluhrer@cisco.com> wrote:

To be precise, you don=E2= =80=99t actually recover any keying material.=C2=A0 What you do recover are= the (r, s) values corresponding to the nonce (which is enough for an attac= ker to forge with that nonce).


You are right. And that's exactly what I meant by Poly1305 key.=

Precisely, pair (r,s) is 32-byte unique (corresponding to nonce) ke= y for "Poly1305". r may be a constant value but s should be uniqu= e, given the nonce is unique for the same key. However, when s repeats (giv= en the same k and repeated nonce), for two different messages the pair (r,s= ) is recoverable. And so the attacker can forge with that nonce.
=

=C2=A0

From: Aanchal = Malhotra [mailto:aanch= al4@bu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 5:08 PM
To: Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer)
Cc: ntpwg@l= ists.ntp.org
Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Minor correction on draft-aanchal4-ntp-mac

=C2=A0

Hi Scott,

Thanks for pointing t= his out. I agree that if nonce is reused even once to MAC two different mes= sages with the same key, Poly1305 key can be recovered. I will update the d= raft-aanchal4-ntp-mac.

However, the final MA= C-for-NTP recommendation is in this draft (which does not contain this block of text.)<= /u>

Thanks,

Aanchal.

=C2=A0

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Scott Fluhrer (sflu= hrer) <sfluhrer@= cisco.com> wrote:

The draft claims that

=C2=A0

2.=C2=A0 The other three algorithms evaluated here do not suf= fer from

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 nonce reuse vulnerabilit= ies where an adversary can recover the

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 authentication key if th= e nonce is reused just once.

=C2=A0

Actually, this is not true; if you use the same nonc= e to MAC two different messages with Poly1305(ChaCha20) (specifically, the = RFC7539 version), an attacker will be able to forge (just with that nonce, however since the attacker gets to select the nonce= , that doesn=E2=80=99t help much).

=C2=A0

Now, this doesn=E2=80=99t change the conclusion of t= he draft, which is to use CMAC (which I agree with); I just wanted to make = sure that, should you reevaluate things and reconsider Poly1305, that you would be aware of the issues.


_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
ntpwg@lists.ntp.or= g
http://li= sts.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg

=C2=A0


--001a113d5ca0b28658054e965d0e-- --===============4761358262152133936== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg --===============4761358262152133936==-- From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Wed May 3 09:42:52 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 AA3B5129B65 for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 09:42:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.091 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.091 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com 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 3ljbyQ8Xtgyp for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 09:42:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0178129B10 for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 09:40:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E1C586DB33 for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 16:40:26 +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 200BC86D55E for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 16:40:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com ([74.125.82.51]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d5xJt-0009pj-3U for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 16:40:14 +0000 Received: by mail-wm0-f51.google.com with SMTP id m123so64780688wma.0 for ; Wed, 03 May 2017 09:40:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=CfDN/2bIYmsn7COG0KrPMVpaexM1V1sY32STXq6Q19w=; b=cpPp1HITjkuiZ8ChvTGwrk7RWJzjeAkHbQjbjPvH95/80HKUFiyToe6L11mNc+UBKM MwVW3L83uQWEt8m3g2931IsXSkUmV9uDHyKIeb3xovq7D3qh8wCdMe+p1LaIRPUG4cvs P/AJU4Tjk5YuZ/+JAgtQnvtXiBl7V9Rpecit4rFefe71SHNti3cjhoA9nFusRzpH2H+H aAmJBShkRE0aZ3R5uw5pyRpTVAnMVsLrPg55bZZcguHnZCD+XCv560jrq1aqNC+hoK3l 6FF259MYAnKbfpT3sqn68c+dx+gRLenIUaZOUNckWYzckaW+WEOUbQu04vGF0HsC+TqU S0hQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CfDN/2bIYmsn7COG0KrPMVpaexM1V1sY32STXq6Q19w=; b=iRYZQwgENFT0PUja4Sn7bAl8r4MudTTe3w17zdF3RKNYUIe4yhWb2L9qbyXpePntAF uKHQeezBCEwNRRsg1G1hA7LmeNaUpuY1sl8DAGgbuQe3a4eo6RMBH3B5D9b4BIjfOfwq XI5VLjIphYckkHXrmoDRnap4J99QnDYR0HA7EwEEqStQiculf3J59qLmzGuLc7Pa5BaL vUGqZDAUw5p0RkGuVARsskm55AlSM63VeXL8GPuJKxHzNvciw/VqHwPYqrqCCTH8rg1V 5yqLdLKsUS2m1X3Co96NAa7ZBwdp0ponp6rip7lCYffGhkcofVSFc9oMO8nIedlIdyVr L+fQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6ZSbxDDXRApgbnP5IeiUzIKx/g1P15C0NW4vTIXK2qSi/o98SL iogXOgOnR3EszW/7lIh4OqRmvFBvyw== X-Received: by 10.80.186.199 with SMTP id x65mr27576540ede.46.1493829603687; Wed, 03 May 2017 09:40:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.140.67 with HTTP; Wed, 3 May 2017 09:40:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1a0e9a0d48104183b336422529790c43@XCH-RTP-006.cisco.com> References: <1a0e9a0d48104183b336422529790c43@XCH-RTP-006.cisco.com> From: Daniel Franke Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 12:40:03 -0400 Message-ID: To: "Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer)" X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 74.125.82.51 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: dfoxfranke@gmail.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Comments on draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-08 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" Sorry for the delay in reply. Responses inline. On 4/23/17, Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) wrote: > - First off, you are using encryption to generate privacy for part > of the messages, but not the main part (the NTP header). That strikes me > (from a security standpoint) as odd. In your objectives, you said you > wanted unlinkability, but you also state (second paragraph of 8.2) that > there are existing issues that you don't address, and hope that the client > will handle it. It would make sense to me to have the protocol handle it, > and not rely on the client getting it right. Is there a reason you need the > NTP header to be in the clear (e.g. some middleware box expects to see it, > or you need the unprotected NTP format to be essentially the same as a > protected one)? As an outsider, it would appear to me that it would make > more sense to encrypt everything other than the cookie; is there a specific > reason not to? If I were designing a time protocol from scratch, then yes, I'd just encrypt and authenticate everything. But NTS is supposed to extend NTP, not replace it, which means we need to operate under the existing syntactic constraints which require the header to be in the clear. The privacy problems stemming from the NTP header fields are solvable and we have a draft for a separate RFC to address those issues. > > - Key generation; the draft has both the server and the client > calling TLS to generating the keying data (RFC5705); then, the server puts > the keys into each cookie. From a security standpoint, this is fine; > however it does make each cookie rather large. With the standard encryption > method (SIV), each key is 32 bytes; that means that the cookie must be at > least 68 bytes long (and likely somewhat longer). Now, this does have the > advantage of being idiot proof (an incorrect implementation will not work, > rather than use an insecure key). However, to me, it would make more sense > to have the server select the keys, and have them send them in the NTS-KE > response. While this gives the server the responsibility to select the keys > securely, this also opens up options that allows the cookies to be much > smaller; for example, the server could select a random 16 byte value, run > that through a Key Derivation Function to generate the keys, and then > encrypt that 16 byte value (along with a nonce and the encryption transform) > to generate the cookies; if the server decided to do that, that might give a > 24 or 28 byte cookie. Now, I'm not suggesting that this alternative method > be mandated; what I am saying is that allowing the server to select the keys > will give the server the option (and, if it's happy with the 5705 method, it > could do that as well). I'm not persuaded that letting the server choose the keys is safe without seeing some formal analysis to that effect. It's clearly okay in a simple two-party setting, but what happens in complex hierarchies where some principals are acting as both clients and servers? It's not obvious to me that this doesn't lead to any surprising attacks, perhaps ones thematically similar to https://mitls.org/pages/attacks/3SHAKE. Also, I don't think using RFC5705 necessarily precludes the sort of optimization you're suggesting. Instead of putting the C2S and S2C keys into the cookie, you could put the master secret in there and then re-run the RFC5705 PRF each time a request comes in. I hesitate to make this a recommendation, though. > - On a related note, you have separate S2C and C2S keys; if you > using the RFC5705 method, that means that both keys must be listed > separately in the cookie. Is there a specific reason not to use the same > key to protect both directions? The NTP header (which is integrity > protected) lists whether this is a server-to-client or a client-to-server > message, and so an attacker doesn't gain anything by taking one message and > reflecting it back to the source (as that'll reject it as an unexpected > mode); is there any other vulnerability you are worried about? Again, this > makes the cookies larger than necessary. One complication with using the > same keys in both directions: if you're negotiating GCM (or another AEAD > algorithm that requires nonce uniqueness), you'd also need to make sure the > client and the server use distinct nonces (e.g. the client use even nonces, > the server use odd ones); perhaps that's a complication you'd prefer not to > have to address. Yes, that's precisely why I decided not to go that route. > - AEAD transforms; you allow the negotiation of any AEAD transform > from the IANA registry; however there is a potential issue; as above, some > transforms (such as GCM) disallows nonce reuse; this becomes an issue for > the server (as it doesn't keep per client state). This can be handled (e.g. > by having a global counter it uses for all clients; that would allow someone > to deduce how busy a server is; I don't believe that's secret); however I > believe it does need to be spelled out (or alternatively simply disallow > such transforms). The reason I ended up at SIV as the MTI algorithm is that I don't think there's *any* sufficiently reliable method of avoiding nonce reuse in some of the settings where NTP servers operate; see https://lists.ntp.org/pipermail/ntpwg/2016-August/003038.html. And anyway, I'm *certainly* not suggesting that it's a good idea to implement every algorithm in the IANA registry and be willing to negotiate any of them. Just like in the case of TLS ciphersuite negotiation, it's up to implementers to keep tabs on which algorithms are considered safe and to support only those. The first version of my own implementation will probably support only AES_SIV_CMAC_256, and later, for greater efficiency, I'll add AES-GCM-SIV once the CFRG finalizes the spec. > - NTS cookie placeholders; you allow them in either the > authenticated, or in the authenticated-and-encrypted section. Here's why > that sounds wrong: I believe that the model that the NT has is that it > allows the server to process the request in place; it receives the NTP > message, it modifies it, and then sends it back to the client. That's the > reason the NTP cookie placeholders are there; so that the server can replace > them with the cookies (rather than allocating extra space). However, the > cookies need to be in the encrypted section; if the client places them in > the authenticated-only section, that means that the server needs to reorder > things. It would seem to me that it'd make more sense to insist that the > NTP cookie placeholders be mandated to be in the encrypted region (even > though we really don't care about their privacy). It was never my intent to support the sort of in-place transformations you're describing; the placeholders are there simply to ensure that the request and response are the same *length*, to prevent DDoS amplification and loss of timing precision due to asymmetry. I suspect that requiring the placeholders to be encrypted would actually hurt performance, not help it. On the one hand you avoid needing an extra buffer and maybe that avoids some L1 cache misses, but now you have to do a few extra AES operations. _______________________________________________ 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 Wed May 3 10:54:43 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 98FAF129BBF for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 10:54:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.792 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.792 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=cisco.com 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 8YYQlTjA6pA2 for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 10:54:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15C941270A3 for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 10:52:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9C5886DAD2 for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 17:52:12 +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 AF9C786D55E for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 17:52:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com ([173.37.86.77]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d5yRP-000Odz-37 for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 17:52:04 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9430; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1493833914; x=1495043514; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=RokH7ngKLA8gN69vGC9U6RX96VfWSGHfkDR6kN6Nlt0=; b=jlabzy28LvEfT6arf5fOEQ7YlS0GbT2iliwyP1nDH2yowL4O0uS3Ospz stPm5vgk6eTMm2GW4OeypNYJNA1hSlnPiOXILSlh/dm762s1vJl4GFWA9 yj5sapVFTP8f+LcIy/uuWIEiiNierGWZJyFMr6DxrkSRz0mciEyqjuwyI c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AsAQDOFwpZ/5RdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1VigQwHg2GKGJFSiCKNTIIPIQuFeAIahCY/GAECAQEBAQEBAWs?= =?us-ascii?q?ohRUBAQEBAwEiEUUMBAIBCA4DBAEBAQICIwMCAgIfBwoUAQgIAQEEDgUIigEDF?= =?us-ascii?q?Q6xIIImhzINgy4BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYELhVSBXoMbglSBeS2?= =?us-ascii?q?Cb4JfBZ0hOwGHGoYkgQWER5FpiyGEZIQuAR84gQpvFYUzH4FjdgGHUIENAQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,284,1491264000"; d="scan'208";a="240867052" Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 May 2017 17:51:52 +0000 Received: from XCH-RTP-008.cisco.com (xch-rtp-008.cisco.com [64.101.220.148]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v43Hpq36011880 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 3 May 2017 17:51:52 GMT Received: from xch-rtp-006.cisco.com (64.101.220.146) by XCH-RTP-008.cisco.com (64.101.220.148) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 3 May 2017 13:51:51 -0400 Received: from xch-rtp-006.cisco.com ([64.101.220.146]) by XCH-RTP-006.cisco.com ([64.101.220.146]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 3 May 2017 13:51:51 -0400 From: "Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer)" To: Daniel Franke Thread-Topic: [ntpwg] Comments on draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-08 Thread-Index: AdK66Hq55FMv0e1YRiikSoOb23VQLABw7jSgAehPTIAABu0CIA== Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 17:51:51 +0000 Message-ID: <0a209d044426498eb6a82d3eeaa042d0@XCH-RTP-006.cisco.com> References: <1a0e9a0d48104183b336422529790c43@XCH-RTP-006.cisco.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: [10.98.2.52] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 173.37.86.77 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: sfluhrer@cisco.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Comments on draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-08 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="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" DQo+IC0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQo+IEZyb206IERhbmllbCBGcmFua2UgW21h aWx0bzpkZm94ZnJhbmtlQGdtYWlsLmNvbV0NCj4gU2VudDogV2VkbmVzZGF5LCBNYXkgMDMsIDIw MTcgMTI6NDAgUE0NCj4gVG86IFNjb3R0IEZsdWhyZXIgKHNmbHVocmVyKQ0KPiBDYzogbnRwd2dA bGlzdHMubnRwLm9yZw0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW250cHdnXSBDb21tZW50cyBvbiBkcmFmdC1p ZXRmLW50cC11c2luZy1udHMtZm9yLW50cC0wOA0KPiANCj4gU29ycnkgZm9yIHRoZSBkZWxheSBp biByZXBseS4gUmVzcG9uc2VzIGlubGluZS4NCj4gDQo+IE9uIDQvMjMvMTcsIFNjb3R0IEZsdWhy ZXIgKHNmbHVocmVyKSA8c2ZsdWhyZXJAY2lzY28uY29tPiB3cm90ZToNCj4gPg0KPiA+IC0gICAg ICAgICAgS2V5IGdlbmVyYXRpb247IHRoZSBkcmFmdCBoYXMgYm90aCB0aGUgc2VydmVyIGFuZCB0 aGUgY2xpZW50DQo+ID4gY2FsbGluZyBUTFMgdG8gZ2VuZXJhdGluZyB0aGUga2V5aW5nIGRhdGEg KFJGQzU3MDUpOyB0aGVuLCB0aGUgc2VydmVyDQo+ID4gcHV0cyB0aGUga2V5cyBpbnRvIGVhY2gg Y29va2llLiAgRnJvbSBhIHNlY3VyaXR5IHN0YW5kcG9pbnQsIHRoaXMgaXMNCj4gPiBmaW5lOyBo b3dldmVyIGl0IGRvZXMgbWFrZSBlYWNoIGNvb2tpZSByYXRoZXIgbGFyZ2UuICBXaXRoIHRoZQ0K PiA+IHN0YW5kYXJkIGVuY3J5cHRpb24gbWV0aG9kIChTSVYpLCBlYWNoIGtleSBpcyAzMiBieXRl czsgdGhhdCBtZWFucw0KPiA+IHRoYXQgdGhlIGNvb2tpZSBtdXN0IGJlIGF0IGxlYXN0IDY4IGJ5 dGVzIGxvbmcgKGFuZCBsaWtlbHkgc29tZXdoYXQNCj4gPiBsb25nZXIpLiAgTm93LCB0aGlzIGRv ZXMgaGF2ZSB0aGUgYWR2YW50YWdlIG9mIGJlaW5nIGlkaW90IHByb29mIChhbg0KPiA+IGluY29y cmVjdCBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbiB3aWxsIG5vdCB3b3JrLCByYXRoZXIgdGhhbiB1c2UgYW4gaW5z ZWN1cmUNCj4gPiBrZXkpLiAgSG93ZXZlciwgdG8gbWUsIGl0IHdvdWxkIG1ha2UgbW9yZSBzZW5z ZSB0byBoYXZlIHRoZSBzZXJ2ZXINCj4gPiBzZWxlY3QgdGhlIGtleXMsIGFuZCBoYXZlIHRoZW0g c2VuZCB0aGVtIGluIHRoZSBOVFMtS0UgcmVzcG9uc2UuDQo+ID4gV2hpbGUgdGhpcyBnaXZlcyB0 aGUgc2VydmVyIHRoZSByZXNwb25zaWJpbGl0eSB0byBzZWxlY3QgdGhlIGtleXMNCj4gPiBzZWN1 cmVseSwgdGhpcyBhbHNvIG9wZW5zIHVwIG9wdGlvbnMgdGhhdCBhbGxvd3MgdGhlIGNvb2tpZXMg dG8gYmUNCj4gPiBtdWNoIHNtYWxsZXI7IGZvciBleGFtcGxlLCB0aGUgc2VydmVyIGNvdWxkIHNl bGVjdCBhIHJhbmRvbSAxNiBieXRlDQo+ID4gdmFsdWUsIHJ1biB0aGF0IHRocm91Z2ggYSBLZXkg RGVyaXZhdGlvbiBGdW5jdGlvbiB0byBnZW5lcmF0ZSB0aGUNCj4gPiBrZXlzLCBhbmQgdGhlbiBl bmNyeXB0IHRoYXQgMTYgYnl0ZSB2YWx1ZSAoYWxvbmcgd2l0aCBhIG5vbmNlIGFuZCB0aGUNCj4g PiBlbmNyeXB0aW9uIHRyYW5zZm9ybSkgdG8gZ2VuZXJhdGUgdGhlIGNvb2tpZXM7IGlmIHRoZSBz ZXJ2ZXIgZGVjaWRlZA0KPiA+IHRvIGRvIHRoYXQsIHRoYXQgbWlnaHQgZ2l2ZSBhDQo+ID4gMjQg b3IgMjggYnl0ZSBjb29raWUuICBOb3csIEknbSBub3Qgc3VnZ2VzdGluZyB0aGF0IHRoaXMgYWx0 ZXJuYXRpdmUNCj4gPiBtZXRob2QgYmUgbWFuZGF0ZWQ7IHdoYXQgSSBhbSBzYXlpbmcgaXMgdGhh dCBhbGxvd2luZyB0aGUgc2VydmVyIHRvDQo+ID4gc2VsZWN0IHRoZSBrZXlzIHdpbGwgZ2l2ZSB0 aGUgc2VydmVyIHRoZSBvcHRpb24gKGFuZCwgaWYgaXQncyBoYXBweQ0KPiA+IHdpdGggdGhlIDU3 MDUgbWV0aG9kLCBpdCBjb3VsZCBkbyB0aGF0IGFzIHdlbGwpLg0KPiANCj4gSSdtIG5vdCBwZXJz dWFkZWQgdGhhdCBsZXR0aW5nIHRoZSBzZXJ2ZXIgY2hvb3NlIHRoZSBrZXlzIGlzIHNhZmUgd2l0 aG91dA0KPiBzZWVpbmcgc29tZSBmb3JtYWwgYW5hbHlzaXMgdG8gdGhhdCBlZmZlY3QuIEl0J3Mg Y2xlYXJseSBva2F5IGluIGEgc2ltcGxlIHR3by0NCj4gcGFydHkgc2V0dGluZywgYnV0IHdoYXQg aGFwcGVucyBpbiBjb21wbGV4IGhpZXJhcmNoaWVzIHdoZXJlIHNvbWUNCj4gcHJpbmNpcGFscyBh cmUgYWN0aW5nIGFzIGJvdGggY2xpZW50cyBhbmQgc2VydmVycz8gSXQncyBub3Qgb2J2aW91cyB0 byBtZSB0aGF0DQo+IHRoaXMgZG9lc24ndCBsZWFkIHRvIGFueSBzdXJwcmlzaW5nIGF0dGFja3Ms IHBlcmhhcHMgb25lcyB0aGVtYXRpY2FsbHkgc2ltaWxhcg0KPiB0byBodHRwczovL21pdGxzLm9y Zy9wYWdlcy9hdHRhY2tzLzNTSEFLRS4NCj4gDQo+IEFsc28sIEkgZG9uJ3QgdGhpbmsgdXNpbmcg UkZDNTcwNSBuZWNlc3NhcmlseSBwcmVjbHVkZXMgdGhlIHNvcnQgb2YNCj4gb3B0aW1pemF0aW9u IHlvdSdyZSBzdWdnZXN0aW5nLiBJbnN0ZWFkIG9mIHB1dHRpbmcgdGhlIEMyUyBhbmQgUzJDIGtl eXMgaW50bw0KPiB0aGUgY29va2llLCB5b3UgY291bGQgcHV0IHRoZSBtYXN0ZXIgc2VjcmV0IGlu IHRoZXJlIGFuZCB0aGVuIHJlLXJ1biB0aGUNCj4gUkZDNTcwNSBQUkYgZWFjaCB0aW1lIGEgcmVx dWVzdCBjb21lcyBpbi4gSSBoZXNpdGF0ZSB0byBtYWtlIHRoaXMgYQ0KPiByZWNvbW1lbmRhdGlv biwgdGhvdWdoLg0KDQpJIGRvbuKAmXQgYmVsaWV2ZSB0aGF0IHdvcmtzOyBSRkM1NzA1IGFzc3Vt ZXMgdGhhdCB5b3UgaGF2ZSB0aGUgVExTIG1hc3RlciBzZWNyZXQgYXZhaWxhYmxlOyBvYnZpb3Vz bHksIHRoZSBzZXJ2ZXIgd29uJ3QgaGF2ZSB0aGF0IG1hc3RlciBzZWNyZXQgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGFm dGVyIGluaXRpYWwgbmVnb3RpYXRpb24uDQoNCj4gDQo+ID4gLSAgICAgICAgICBBRUFEIHRyYW5z Zm9ybXM7IHlvdSBhbGxvdyB0aGUgbmVnb3RpYXRpb24gb2YgYW55IEFFQUQgdHJhbnNmb3JtDQo+ ID4gZnJvbSB0aGUgSUFOQSByZWdpc3RyeTsgaG93ZXZlciB0aGVyZSBpcyBhIHBvdGVudGlhbCBp c3N1ZTsgYXMgYWJvdmUsDQo+ID4gc29tZSB0cmFuc2Zvcm1zIChzdWNoIGFzIEdDTSkgZGlzYWxs b3dzIG5vbmNlIHJldXNlOyB0aGlzIGJlY29tZXMgYW4NCj4gPiBpc3N1ZSBmb3IgdGhlIHNlcnZl ciAoYXMgaXQgZG9lc24ndCBrZWVwIHBlciBjbGllbnQgc3RhdGUpLiAgVGhpcyBjYW4gYmUNCj4g aGFuZGxlZCAoZS5nLg0KPiA+IGJ5IGhhdmluZyBhIGdsb2JhbCBjb3VudGVyIGl0IHVzZXMgZm9y IGFsbCBjbGllbnRzOyB0aGF0IHdvdWxkIGFsbG93DQo+ID4gc29tZW9uZSB0byBkZWR1Y2UgaG93 IGJ1c3kgYSBzZXJ2ZXIgaXM7IEkgZG9uJ3QgYmVsaWV2ZSB0aGF0J3MNCj4gPiBzZWNyZXQpOyBo b3dldmVyIEkgYmVsaWV2ZSBpdCBkb2VzIG5lZWQgdG8gYmUgc3BlbGxlZCBvdXQgKG9yDQo+ID4g YWx0ZXJuYXRpdmVseSBzaW1wbHkgZGlzYWxsb3cgc3VjaCB0cmFuc2Zvcm1zKS4NCj4gDQo+IFRo ZSByZWFzb24gSSBlbmRlZCB1cCBhdCBTSVYgYXMgdGhlIE1USSBhbGdvcml0aG0gaXMgdGhhdCBJ IGRvbid0IHRoaW5rIHRoZXJlJ3MNCj4gKmFueSogc3VmZmljaWVudGx5IHJlbGlhYmxlIG1ldGhv ZCBvZiBhdm9pZGluZyBub25jZSByZXVzZSBpbiBzb21lIG9mIHRoZQ0KPiBzZXR0aW5ncyB3aGVy ZSBOVFAgc2VydmVycyBvcGVyYXRlOyBzZWUNCj4gaHR0cHM6Ly9saXN0cy5udHAub3JnL3BpcGVy bWFpbC9udHB3Zy8yMDE2LUF1Z3VzdC8wMDMwMzguaHRtbC4gQW5kDQo+IGFueXdheSwgSSdtICpj ZXJ0YWlubHkqIG5vdCBzdWdnZXN0aW5nIHRoYXQgaXQncyBhIGdvb2QgaWRlYSB0byBpbXBsZW1l bnQNCj4gZXZlcnkgYWxnb3JpdGhtIGluIHRoZSBJQU5BIHJlZ2lzdHJ5IGFuZCBiZSB3aWxsaW5n IHRvIG5lZ290aWF0ZSBhbnkgb2YgdGhlbS4NCj4gSnVzdCBsaWtlIGluIHRoZSBjYXNlIG9mIFRM UyBjaXBoZXJzdWl0ZSBuZWdvdGlhdGlvbiwgaXQncyB1cCB0byBpbXBsZW1lbnRlcnMgdG8NCj4g a2VlcCB0YWJzIG9uIHdoaWNoIGFsZ29yaXRobXMgYXJlIGNvbnNpZGVyZWQgc2FmZSBhbmQgdG8g c3VwcG9ydCBvbmx5DQo+IHRob3NlLiBUaGUgZmlyc3QgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiBteSBvd24gaW1wbGVt ZW50YXRpb24gd2lsbCBwcm9iYWJseSBzdXBwb3J0IG9ubHkNCj4gQUVTX1NJVl9DTUFDXzI1Niwg YW5kIGxhdGVyLCBmb3IgZ3JlYXRlciBlZmZpY2llbmN5LCBJJ2xsIGFkZCBBRVMtR0NNLVNJVg0K PiBvbmNlIHRoZSBDRlJHIGZpbmFsaXplcyB0aGUgc3BlYy4NCg0KV2hpbGUgSSBzdXNwZWN0IHRo YXQgc2VydmVyIG5vbmNlcyAqY291bGQqIGJ5IG1hZGUgdG8gbmV2ZXIgcmVwZWF0LCBJIHdvdWxk IGFncmVlIHRoYXQgaXQncyBub250cml2aWFsIChhbmQgcGVvcGxlIGFyZSBsaWtlbHkgdG8gZ2V0 IGl0IHdyb25nKS4gIE1pZ2h0IEkgdGhlbiBzdWdnZXN0IHRoYXQgeW91IGZvcmJpZCBBRVMtR01B QyAoYW5kIFBvbHkxMzA1LCB3aGljaCBoYXMgc2ltaWxhciwgaWYgbm90IGFzIHNldmVyZSwgaXNz dWVzKT8NCg0KPiANCj4gPiAtICAgICAgICAgIE5UUyBjb29raWUgcGxhY2Vob2xkZXJzOyB5b3Ug YWxsb3cgdGhlbSBpbiBlaXRoZXIgdGhlDQo+ID4gYXV0aGVudGljYXRlZCwgb3IgaW4gdGhlIGF1 dGhlbnRpY2F0ZWQtYW5kLWVuY3J5cHRlZCBzZWN0aW9uLiAgSGVyZSdzDQo+ID4gd2h5IHRoYXQg c291bmRzIHdyb25nOiBJIGJlbGlldmUgdGhhdCB0aGUgbW9kZWwgdGhhdCB0aGUgTlQgaGFzIGlz DQo+ID4gdGhhdCBpdCBhbGxvd3MgdGhlIHNlcnZlciB0byBwcm9jZXNzIHRoZSByZXF1ZXN0IGlu IHBsYWNlOyBpdCByZWNlaXZlcw0KPiA+IHRoZSBOVFAgbWVzc2FnZSwgaXQgbW9kaWZpZXMgaXQs IGFuZCB0aGVuIHNlbmRzIGl0IGJhY2sgdG8gdGhlIGNsaWVudC4NCj4gPiBUaGF0J3MgdGhlIHJl YXNvbiB0aGUgTlRQIGNvb2tpZSBwbGFjZWhvbGRlcnMgYXJlIHRoZXJlOyBzbyB0aGF0IHRoZQ0K PiA+IHNlcnZlciBjYW4gcmVwbGFjZSB0aGVtIHdpdGggdGhlIGNvb2tpZXMgKHJhdGhlciB0aGFu IGFsbG9jYXRpbmcgZXh0cmENCj4gPiBzcGFjZSkuICBIb3dldmVyLCB0aGUgY29va2llcyBuZWVk IHRvIGJlIGluIHRoZSBlbmNyeXB0ZWQgc2VjdGlvbjsgaWYNCj4gPiB0aGUgY2xpZW50IHBsYWNl cyB0aGVtIGluIHRoZSBhdXRoZW50aWNhdGVkLW9ubHkgc2VjdGlvbiwgdGhhdCBtZWFucw0KPiA+ IHRoYXQgdGhlIHNlcnZlciBuZWVkcyB0byByZW9yZGVyIHRoaW5ncy4gIEl0IHdvdWxkIHNlZW0g dG8gbWUgdGhhdA0KPiA+IGl0J2QgbWFrZSBtb3JlIHNlbnNlIHRvIGluc2lzdCB0aGF0IHRoZSBO VFAgY29va2llIHBsYWNlaG9sZGVycyBiZQ0KPiA+IG1hbmRhdGVkIHRvIGJlIGluIHRoZSBlbmNy eXB0ZWQgcmVnaW9uIChldmVuIHRob3VnaCB3ZSByZWFsbHkgZG9uJ3QgY2FyZQ0KPiBhYm91dCB0 aGVpciBwcml2YWN5KS4NCj4gDQo+IEl0IHdhcyBuZXZlciBteSBpbnRlbnQgdG8gc3VwcG9ydCB0 aGUgc29ydCBvZiBpbi1wbGFjZSB0cmFuc2Zvcm1hdGlvbnMgeW91J3JlDQo+IGRlc2NyaWJpbmc7 IHRoZSBwbGFjZWhvbGRlcnMgYXJlIHRoZXJlIHNpbXBseSB0byBlbnN1cmUgdGhhdCB0aGUgcmVx dWVzdCBhbmQNCj4gcmVzcG9uc2UgYXJlIHRoZSBzYW1lICpsZW5ndGgqLCB0byBwcmV2ZW50IERE b1MgYW1wbGlmaWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgbG9zcyBvZg0KPiB0aW1pbmcgcHJlY2lzaW9uIGR1ZSB0byBh c3ltbWV0cnkuIEkgc3VzcGVjdCB0aGF0IHJlcXVpcmluZyB0aGUgcGxhY2Vob2xkZXJzDQo+IHRv IGJlIGVuY3J5cHRlZCB3b3VsZCBhY3R1YWxseSBodXJ0IHBlcmZvcm1hbmNlLCBub3QgaGVscCBp dC4gT24gdGhlIG9uZQ0KPiBoYW5kIHlvdSBhdm9pZCBuZWVkaW5nIGFuIGV4dHJhIGJ1ZmZlciBh bmQgbWF5YmUgdGhhdCBhdm9pZHMgc29tZSBMMQ0KPiBjYWNoZSBtaXNzZXMsIGJ1dCBub3cgeW91 IGhhdmUgdG8gZG8gYSBmZXcgZXh0cmEgQUVTIG9wZXJhdGlvbnMuDQoNCklmIHRoYXQncyB5b3Vy IGNvbmNlcm4sIHdlbGwsIGlmIEknbSBub3QgbWlzdGFrZW4sIHRoZSBsZW5ndGhzIG1heSBiZSBk aWZmZXJlbnQsIGJlY2F1c2Ugb2YgdGhlIGRpZmZlcmVudCBhbW91bnRzIG9mIGVuY3J5cHRpb24g cGFkZGluZy4gIEluIHBhcnRpY3VsYXIsIGlmIHRoZSBjbGllbnQgZG9lc24ndCBpbmNsdWRlIGFu eSBleHRlbnNpb25zIHdpdGhpbiB0aGUgZW5jcnlwdGVkIGV4dGVuc2lvbiAoSSBkb24ndCBzZWUg YW55IGV4dGVuc2lvbnMgd2hpY2ggbXVzdCBiZSBlbmNyeXB0ZWQ7IHRoZSBwbGFjZS1ob2xkZXIg Y29va2llcyBhcmUgdGhlIG9ubHkgZXhhbXBsZSB5b3UgZ2l2ZSB3aGljaCBtYXkgYmUpLCB0aGVu IGl0IGlzIHN0aWxsIHJlcXVpcmVkIHRvIGhhdmUgMjQgb2N0ZXRzIG9mIHBhZGRpbmc7IGNvbWlu ZyBiYWNrLCB0aGUgc2VydmVyIG1vdmVzIHRoZSBwbGFjZWhvbGRlcnMgaW50byB0aGUgZW5jcnlw dGVkIGV4dGVuc2lvbiAoYW5kIHJlZHVicyB0aGVtIGFzIGNvb2tpZXMpOyB5b3UgbmVlZCBhIG1p bmltYWwgYW1vdW50IG9mIHBhZGRpbmcgdGhlcmUuDQoNCldvdWxkIGEgKHdvcnNlIGNhc2UpIDIz IG9jdGV0IGRlbHRhIGluIHRoZSBzaXplcyBiZSBlbm91Z2ggdG8gYmUgY29uY2VybmVkIGFib3V0 PyAgKFRvIGJlIGhvbmVzdCwgSSBkb24ndCBrbm93KQ0KDQpPaCwgYW5kIHlvdSBwcm9iYWJseSBz aG91bGQgZXhwbGljaXRseSByZXF1aXJlIHRoYXQgY29va2llcyBmcm9tIHRoZSBzYW1lIHNlcnZl ciAoZm9yIHRoZSBzYW1lIHRyYW5zZm9ybS9rZXlzKSBhbHdheXMgYmUgdGhlIHNhbWUgbGVuZ3Ro LiAgSXQnZCBiZSByYXRoZXIgb2RkIGlmIGFuIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIGRpZG4ndCBkbyB0aGF0 OyBob3dldmVyIGl0IGxvb2tzIGxpa2UgeW91IGRvIGFzc3VtZSBpdCAoYXQgbGVhc3QgaW4gdGVy bXMgb2YgYmFsYW5jaW5nIGNsaWVudC9zZXJ2ZXIgbWVzc2FnZSBzaXplcykuDQogDQpfX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXwpudHB3ZyBtYWlsaW5nIGxp c3QKbnRwd2dAbGlzdHMubnRwLm9yZwpodHRwOi8vbGlzdHMubnRwLm9yZy9saXN0aW5mby9udHB3 Zw== From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Wed May 3 11:20:47 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 BD9E7129B8B for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 11:20:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.609 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com 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 zTGh0oopqZGD for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 11:20:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9E4B126B7F for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 11:18:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B0A586DB26 for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 18:18:19 +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 5ECC986D55E for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 18:18:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d5yqc-0003zZ-4b for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 18:18:06 +0000 Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id w64so155533852wma.0 for ; Wed, 03 May 2017 11:17:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=S4i0jrIuHQSIvJaigp4To1Ev2XfXwYgA1p1skaGVeiI=; b=rygXc40HelJroerAQ8/+rmuJW257cpJhiohI3DWN9mLaHFzsW65JrDoSXCEb7HcmLg ZuXC0Sau1zBGmF+3vllYqRXgkPGp9mPU81/i/wsUj4Pxmms0DbxwvgaCtM0eXtfXyf03 TEKScp66/M5hKYvQG2LCC3W4BfjaJzaGaW3w7wkmDWL0YHIFVW1hfAQwT8LlyoGnig3d M+NeIgvtfiAAk1OYgEdFHQGkRMTplpo1jOY5ExAfErlQ/oKAqb4F+oUbJZYE2f1tsE5M shaUWh5lxCyJ6YwhYClMtIrcuEsR2YzYdDCVxGLYlmm/Rk7sNGAMksh+kbJKdLsY6lMV X5Ag== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=S4i0jrIuHQSIvJaigp4To1Ev2XfXwYgA1p1skaGVeiI=; b=bSH96pO9ItfEY1duS+KSaC4cxGEVOnvgGiMj4SIPP5LBGsUu6/L0sWGAlcgC8dG3tk xNtOSJVSidenwX7HPkgokWA/2MLkykb/0LlcIWImym+VFf7ukV6LaSQQyD420wOxTNC8 lQYK3/3Tv4ubn216dEbQmsX7xnZ8W/oIzLF3keLf5GYEES0Y377vyFGe5gsKuj20fXZL UJXLYhfwgZN3aDlb2EwEtuKeCN9RBMIzlLbv6SFRVkbaxLrPlGDzvOfQBfsBWOhCMeKm EXcN1RcQHzcyJgUbsM+IT8nzFfAuT32Gn4fpMqAvwW5p4wwWkyuY/J3waFVHaayHuTfp FO1w== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/49UYYDd+LdMmBU1AL9ONDtlmAo8aJMiSFxOoY3pXXNt3xL+GP2 SJT3sQhjagoBqdYN+hEl6s1M4NghgQ== X-Received: by 10.80.184.117 with SMTP id k50mr1142196ede.113.1493835476931; Wed, 03 May 2017 11:17:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.140.67 with HTTP; Wed, 3 May 2017 11:17:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <0a209d044426498eb6a82d3eeaa042d0@XCH-RTP-006.cisco.com> References: <1a0e9a0d48104183b336422529790c43@XCH-RTP-006.cisco.com> <0a209d044426498eb6a82d3eeaa042d0@XCH-RTP-006.cisco.com> From: Daniel Franke Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 14:17:56 -0400 Message-ID: To: "Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer)" X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 74.125.82.43 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: dfoxfranke@gmail.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Comments on draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-08 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="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" T24gNS8zLzE3LCBTY290dCBGbHVocmVyIChzZmx1aHJlcikgPHNmbHVocmVyQGNpc2NvLmNvbT4g d3JvdGU6Cj4+IEFsc28sIEkgZG9uJ3QgdGhpbmsgdXNpbmcgUkZDNTcwNSBuZWNlc3NhcmlseSBw cmVjbHVkZXMgdGhlIHNvcnQgb2YKPj4gb3B0aW1pemF0aW9uIHlvdSdyZSBzdWdnZXN0aW5nLiBJ bnN0ZWFkIG9mIHB1dHRpbmcgdGhlIEMyUyBhbmQgUzJDIGtleXMKPj4gaW50bwo+PiB0aGUgY29v a2llLCB5b3UgY291bGQgcHV0IHRoZSBtYXN0ZXIgc2VjcmV0IGluIHRoZXJlIGFuZCB0aGVuIHJl LXJ1biB0aGUKPj4gUkZDNTcwNSBQUkYgZWFjaCB0aW1lIGEgcmVxdWVzdCBjb21lcyBpbi4gSSBo ZXNpdGF0ZSB0byBtYWtlIHRoaXMgYQo+PiByZWNvbW1lbmRhdGlvbiwgdGhvdWdoLgo+Cj4gSSBk b27igJl0IGJlbGlldmUgdGhhdCB3b3JrczsgUkZDNTcwNSBhc3N1bWVzIHRoYXQgeW91IGhhdmUg dGhlIFRMUyBtYXN0ZXIKPiBzZWNyZXQgYXZhaWxhYmxlOyBvYnZpb3VzbHksIHRoZSBzZXJ2ZXIg d29uJ3QgaGF2ZSB0aGF0IG1hc3RlciBzZWNyZXQKPiBhdmFpbGFibGUgYWZ0ZXIgaW5pdGlhbCBu ZWdvdGlhdGlvbi4KCldoaWNoIGlzIHdoeSBJIHNhaWQgdGhlIG1hc3RlciBzZWNyZXQgbmVlZHMg dG8gZ28gaW50byB0aGUgY29va2llIGlmCnlvdSB0YWtlIHRoYXQgYXBwcm9hY2guCgo+IFdoaWxl IEkgc3VzcGVjdCB0aGF0IHNlcnZlciBub25jZXMgKmNvdWxkKiBieSBtYWRlIHRvIG5ldmVyIHJl cGVhdCwgSSB3b3VsZAo+IGFncmVlIHRoYXQgaXQncyBub250cml2aWFsIChhbmQgcGVvcGxlIGFy ZSBsaWtlbHkgdG8gZ2V0IGl0IHdyb25nKS4gIE1pZ2h0IEkKPiB0aGVuIHN1Z2dlc3QgdGhhdCB5 b3UgZm9yYmlkIEFFUy1HTUFDIChhbmQgUG9seTEzMDUsIHdoaWNoIGhhcyBzaW1pbGFyLCBpZgo+ IG5vdCBhcyBzZXZlcmUsIGlzc3Vlcyk/CgpJIGRvbid0IHRoaW5rIGl0J3MgdXNlZnVsIHRvIG1h a2UgYW4gZXhwbGljaXQgYmxhY2tsaXN0IG9mIGFsZ29yaXRobXMKZ2l2ZW4gdGhhdCB0aGUgSUFO QSByZWdpc3RyeSBpcyBzdWJqZWN0IHRvIGV4cGFuc2lvbiBhbmQgdGhlcmVmb3JlIHRoZQpibGFj a2xpc3QgYWx3YXlzIHJpc2tzIGJlaW5nIGluY29tcGxldGUuIEJ1dCBJIHNob3VsZCBwcm9iYWJs eSBpbmNsdWRlCm1vcmUgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBpbiB0aGUgc2VjdXJpdHkgY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbnMg YXMgdG8gd2h5IHJlc2lzdGFuY2UgdG8Kbm9uY2UgcmV1c2Ugc2hvdWxkIGJlIGFuIGltcG9ydGFu dCBmYWN0b3IgaW4gZGVjaWRpbmcgd2hhdCBhbGdvcml0aG1zCnRvIHN1cHBvcnQuCgo+IElmIHRo YXQncyB5b3VyIGNvbmNlcm4sIHdlbGwsIGlmIEknbSBub3QgbWlzdGFrZW4sIHRoZSBsZW5ndGhz IG1heSBiZQo+IGRpZmZlcmVudCwgYmVjYXVzZSBvZiB0aGUgZGlmZmVyZW50IGFtb3VudHMgb2Yg ZW5jcnlwdGlvbiBwYWRkaW5nLiAgSW4KPiBwYXJ0aWN1bGFyLCBpZiB0aGUgY2xpZW50IGRvZXNu J3QgaW5jbHVkZSBhbnkgZXh0ZW5zaW9ucyB3aXRoaW4gdGhlCj4gZW5jcnlwdGVkIGV4dGVuc2lv biAoSSBkb24ndCBzZWUgYW55IGV4dGVuc2lvbnMgd2hpY2ggbXVzdCBiZSBlbmNyeXB0ZWQ7IHRo ZQo+IHBsYWNlLWhvbGRlciBjb29raWVzIGFyZSB0aGUgb25seSBleGFtcGxlIHlvdSBnaXZlIHdo aWNoIG1heSBiZSksIHRoZW4gaXQgaXMKPiBzdGlsbCByZXF1aXJlZCB0byBoYXZlIDI0IG9jdGV0 cyBvZiBwYWRkaW5nOyBjb21pbmcgYmFjaywgdGhlIHNlcnZlciBtb3Zlcwo+IHRoZSBwbGFjZWhv bGRlcnMgaW50byB0aGUgZW5jcnlwdGVkIGV4dGVuc2lvbiAoYW5kIHJlZHVicyB0aGVtIGFzIGNv b2tpZXMpOwo+IHlvdSBuZWVkIGEgbWluaW1hbCBhbW91bnQgb2YgcGFkZGluZyB0aGVyZS4KPgo+ IFdvdWxkIGEgKHdvcnNlIGNhc2UpIDIzIG9jdGV0IGRlbHRhIGluIHRoZSBzaXplcyBiZSBlbm91 Z2ggdG8gYmUgY29uY2VybmVkCj4gYWJvdXQ/ICAoVG8gYmUgaG9uZXN0LCBJIGRvbid0IGtub3cp CgoyMyBvY3RldHMgd291bGQgYmUgYm9yZGVybGluZSBjb25jZXJuaW5nLCBidXQgSSBkb24ndCB0 aGluayBpdCBjYW4KZXZlciBjb21lIGNsb3NlIHRvIHRoYXQgc2luY2UgdGhlIDI0LW9jdGV0IG1p bmltdW0gaXMgYWxyZWFkeSB0YWtlbiB1cApieSB0aGUgbm9uY2UgYW5kIHRoZSBhdXRoZW50aWNh dGlvbiB0YWcuIElmIHRoZSBzaXplcyBvZiB0aG9zZSB0d28KZmllbGRzIHN1bSB0byBhIG11bHRp cGxlIG9mIDQgKHdoaWNoIHRoZXkgcHJvYmFibHkgYWx3YXlzIHdpbGwpIHRoZW4KdGhlIHJlcXVl c3QgYW5kIHJlc3BvbnNlIHNpemUgc2hvdWxkIGNvbWUgb3V0IGV4YWN0bHkgdGhlIHNhbWU7Cm90 aGVyd2lzZSB0aGUgZGlmZmVyZW5jZSBzaG91bGRuJ3QgZXhjZWVkIDMgb2N0ZXRzLgoKPiBPaCwg YW5kIHlvdSBwcm9iYWJseSBzaG91bGQgZXhwbGljaXRseSByZXF1aXJlIHRoYXQgY29va2llcyBm cm9tIHRoZSBzYW1lCj4gc2VydmVyIChmb3IgdGhlIHNhbWUgdHJhbnNmb3JtL2tleXMpIGFsd2F5 cyBiZSB0aGUgc2FtZSBsZW5ndGguICBJdCdkIGJlCj4gcmF0aGVyIG9kZCBpZiBhbiBpbXBsZW1l bnRhdGlvbiBkaWRuJ3QgZG8gdGhhdDsgaG93ZXZlciBpdCBsb29rcyBsaWtlIHlvdSBkbwo+IGFz c3VtZSBpdCAoYXQgbGVhc3QgaW4gdGVybXMgb2YgYmFsYW5jaW5nIGNsaWVudC9zZXJ2ZXIgbWVz c2FnZSBzaXplcykuCgpJIHRoaW5rIGl0J3Mgb3ZlcnJlYWNoaW5nIHRvIG1ha2UgdGhhdCBhIHJl cXVpcmVtZW50LiBJZiBpbXBsZW1lbnRlcnMKYXJlIGdlbmVyYXRpbmcgdmFyaWFibHktc2l6ZWQg Y29va2llcyB0aGVuIHRoZXkgbXVzdCBoYXZlIGEgcmVhc29uLAphbmQgSSBkb24ndCB3YW50IHRv IHByZXN1bWUgdGhhdCB0aGVpciByZWFzb24gaXMgbGVzcyBpbXBvcnRhbnQgdGhhbgpndWFyYW50 ZWVpbmcgZXhhY3QgcGFyaXR5IG9mIHJlcXVlc3QgYW5kIHJlc3BvbnNlIHNpemVzLiBUaGlzIHBh cml0eQppcyBkZXNpcmFibGUsIGJ1dCBpdCdzIG5vdCBhcyBpZiBiZWluZyBhIGZldyBieXRlcyBv ZmYgY2F1c2VzIGFueXRoaW5nCmNhdGFzdHJvcGhpYyB0byBoYXBwZW4uCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fCm50cHdnIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdApudHB3 Z0BsaXN0cy5udHAub3JnCmh0dHA6Ly9saXN0cy5udHAub3JnL2xpc3RpbmZvL250cHdn From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Wed May 3 15:47:59 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 372AB1243F3 for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 15:47:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 JQivNih5EO8w for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 15:47:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68D42126C2F for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 15:47:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C67086DB2F for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 22:47:56 +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 451FB86D55E for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 22:47:44 +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 1d633X-0007Pe-El for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 22:47:44 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chessie.everett.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9E4BFB837 for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 22:47:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.66.3.3] (96-41-177-107.dhcp.mdfd.or.charter.com [96.41.177.107]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by chessie.everett.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6ACE4B826; Wed, 3 May 2017 22:47:33 +0000 (UTC) To: "Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer)" , "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" References: <1a0e9a0d48104183b336422529790c43@XCH-RTP-006.cisco.com> From: Harlan Stenn Message-ID: <9628002d-3917-684a-5f83-58b0ca62dd69@nwtime.org> Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 15:47:34 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1a0e9a0d48104183b336422529790c43@XCH-RTP-006.cisco.com> X-DSPAM-Result: Innocent X-DSPAM-Processed: Wed May 3 22:47:34 2017 X-DSPAM-Confidence: 0.9899 X-DSPAM-Improbability: 1 in 9809 chance of being spam X-DSPAM-Probability: 0.0000 X-DSPAM-Signature: 6384,590a5e06107501257813189 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] Comments on draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-08 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="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" On 4/23/2017 8:38 PM, Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) wrote: > Resending (as apparently the original didn=92t make it out=85) > = > = > = > *From:*Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) > *Sent:* Friday, April 21, 2017 5:45 PM > *To:* 'ntpwg@lists.ntp.org' > *Subject:* Comments on draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-08 > = > = > = > Hello, > = > = > = > I=92ve just reviewed draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-08, and I > thought I might raise a few comments. Now, for my background (to give > context to my comments): > = > = > = > - I know little about the subtleties of handling time to the > precision that NTP does. > = > - I do know cryptography > = > = > = > Also, I have not been active in this group (even as a lurker); I did go > through the mail archives (and didn=92t see much discussion). As there > may be context that I=92m missing, my comments may be totally off-base (or > are just reraising issues that have already been discussed and dismissed). > = > = > = > The draft actually looks pretty good; I=92ll not list the things I > basically agree with, but instead just mention the things that sound a > bit off: > = > = > = > - First off, you are using encryption to generate privacy for > part of the messages, but not the main part (the NTP header). That > strikes me (from a security standpoint) as odd. In your objectives, you > said you wanted unlinkability, but you also state (second paragraph of > 8.2) that there are existing issues that you don=92t address, and hope > that the client will handle it. It would make sense to me to have the > protocol handle it, and not rely on the client getting it right. Is > there a reason you need the NTP header to be in the clear (e.g. some > middleware box expects to see it, or you need the unprotected NTP format > to be essentially the same as a protected one)? As an outsider, it > would appear to me that it would make more sense to encrypt everything > other than the cookie; is there a specific reason not to? Off the top of my head: - the current time isn't sensitive information. - encrypting the base packet adds significant overhead for both sides of the association. This becomes more significant in a WAN setting, where the problems of the initial exchange add complexity and time, which exacerbate DoS problems. - quickly getting the initial time sync is often very important. Packet size is important. Rate-limiting packet exchanges is a requirement. Initial key exchange can blow all of this out of the water, and makes for an obvious DoS vector as well. - encryption is of dubious value in a LAN setting. - It makes debugging harder. So situations where "more encryption" is useful or desirable exist, but this should be a *choice* and not a *requirement*. > - Key generation; the draft has both the server and the client > calling TLS to generating the keying data (RFC5705); then, the server > puts the keys into each cookie. From a security standpoint, this is > fine; however it does make each cookie rather large. With the standard > encryption method (SIV), each key is 32 bytes; that means that the > cookie must be at least 68 bytes long (and likely somewhat longer). = > Now, this does have the advantage of being idiot proof (an incorrect > implementation will not work, rather than use an insecure key). = > However, to me, it would make more sense to have the server select the > keys, and have them send them in the NTS-KE response. While this gives > the server the responsibility to select the keys securely, this also > opens up options that allows the cookies to be much smaller; for > example, the server could select a random 16 byte value, run that > through a Key Derivation Function to generate the keys, and then encrypt > that 16 byte value (along with a nonce and the encryption transform) to > generate the cookies; if the server decided to do that, that might give > a 24 or 28 byte cookie. Now, I=92m not suggesting that this alternative > method be mandated; what I am saying is that allowing the server to > select the keys will give the server the option (and, if it=92s happy with > the 5705 method, it could do that as well). Remember peer mode, and we need to at least be aware of one-way broadcast. The above means that the client has no choice but to accept/believe the server. Eventually, we want to allow for bi-directional authentication and authorization. > - On a related note, you have separate S2C and C2S keys; if you > using the RFC5705 method, that means that both keys must be listed > separately in the cookie. Is there a specific reason not to use the > same key to protect both directions? The NTP header (which is integrity > protected) lists whether this is a server-to-client or a > client-to-server message, and so an attacker doesn=92t gain anything by > taking one message and reflecting it back to the source (as that=92ll > reject it as an unexpected mode); is there any other vulnerability you > are worried about? Again, this makes the cookies larger than > necessary. One complication with using the same keys in both > directions: if you=92re negotiating GCM (or another AEAD algorithm that > requires nonce uniqueness), you=92d also need to make sure the client and > the server use distinct nonces (e.g. the client use even nonces, the > server use odd ones); perhaps that=92s a complication you=92d prefer not = to > have to address. > = > - AEAD transforms; you allow the negotiation of any AEAD > transform from the IANA registry; however there is a potential issue; as > above, some transforms (such as GCM) disallows nonce reuse; this becomes > an issue for the server (as it doesn=92t keep per client state). This can > be handled (e.g. by having a global counter it uses for all clients; > that would allow someone to deduce how busy a server is; I don=92t believe > that=92s secret); however I believe it does need to be spelled out (or > alternatively simply disallow such transforms). > = > - NTS cookie placeholders; you allow them in either the > authenticated, or in the authenticated-and-encrypted section. Here=92s > why that sounds wrong: I believe that the model that the NT has is that > it allows the server to process the request in place; it receives the > NTP message, it modifies it, and then sends it back to the client. = > That=92s the reason the NTP cookie placeholders are there; so that the > server can replace them with the cookies (rather than allocating extra > space). However, the cookies need to be in the encrypted section; if > the client places them in the authenticated-only section, that means > that the server needs to reorder things. It would seem to me that it=92d > make more sense to insist that the NTP cookie placeholders be mandated > to be in the encrypted region (even though we really don=92t care about > their privacy). While the base packet has known areas in it, the EFs are not fixed. The purpose of a MAC is to authenticate the previous contents of the packet. The belief that an EF must be at least 24 bytes long is a mistake that should have never been propagated. > Thank you for taking the time to listen to someone new to NTP=85 I'm glad to see your participation. H -- > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed May 3 16:21:56 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 E628D127876 for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 16:21:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 nf1pE5cao3Ka for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 16:21:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19D2F124234 for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 16:21:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 435F486DB1E for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 23:21:54 +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 7D66286D55E for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 23:21:41 +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 1d63aP-000EUI-NK for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 23:21:41 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chessie.everett.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9B1F5B837 for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 23:21:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.66.3.3] (96-41-177-107.dhcp.mdfd.or.charter.com [96.41.177.107]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by chessie.everett.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 32B32B826 for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 23:21:32 +0000 (UTC) To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org References: <58DB51D3020000A10002562B@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> <58DB51D3020000A10002562B@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> <56ee9a97-6f65-bf71-0749-0596d3565a79@innovationslab.net> <58DBB3B8020000A100025649@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> From: Harlan Stenn Message-ID: <728b4520-d53e-adac-b251-be64238b980d@nwtime.org> Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 16:21:27 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-DSPAM-Result: Innocent X-DSPAM-Processed: Wed May 3 23:21:32 2017 X-DSPAM-Confidence: 0.9899 X-DSPAM-Improbability: 1 in 9809 chance of being spam X-DSPAM-Probability: 0.0000 X-DSPAM-Signature: 6384,590a65fc107501640578965 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] Antw: Re: The NTP WG has placed draft-haberman-ntpwg-mode-6-cmds in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued" 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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8535955854194454945==" Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --===============8535955854194454945== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FA7f74DrqufHe4OkF0BNFcqQx5vBxSD25" This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --FA7f74DrqufHe4OkF0BNFcqQx5vBxSD25 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Pm7W3L4AhTMGu0gMb4iIR2c8oJMBduqfP"; protected-headers="v1" From: Harlan Stenn To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Message-ID: <728b4520-d53e-adac-b251-be64238b980d@nwtime.org> Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Antw: Re: The NTP WG has placed draft-haberman-ntpwg-mode-6-cmds in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued" References: <58DB51D3020000A10002562B@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> <58DB51D3020000A10002562B@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> <56ee9a97-6f65-bf71-0749-0596d3565a79@innovationslab.net> <58DBB3B8020000A100025649@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> In-Reply-To: --Pm7W3L4AhTMGu0gMb4iIR2c8oJMBduqfP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sorry for the delay. The basic Mode 7 packet should be described. The Mode 7 packet content need not be - it's vendor-specific. H On 3/29/2017 6:42 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: > Hi Ulrich, >=20 > On 3/29/17 9:16 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote: >>>>> Brian Haberman schrieb am 29.03.2017 >>>>> um 14:16 in >> Nachricht <56ee9a97-6f65-bf71-0749-0596d3565a79@innovationslab.net>: >>> Hi Ulrich, >>> >>> On 3/29/17 2:18 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote: >>>> Yesterday's message had the wrong address in it: >>>> >>>>> Yesterday I wrote: >>>>>>> The NTP WG has placed draft-haberman-ntpwg-mode-6-cmds in >>>>>>> state Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Karen >>>>>>> O'Donoghue) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The document is available at=20 >>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-haberman-ntpwg-mode-6-cmds= / >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi! >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually I miss the purpose of the draft: Currently it seems >>>>>> to be just a copy from RFC 1305. Can anybody explain? >>> >>> When RFC 5905 was published, it did not contain the mode 6 >>> commands. Several people have complained about that, especially >>> having to refer back to a now obsolete RFC 1305. >>> >>> The purpose of this draft is to provide an up-to-date reference for >>> the mode 6 commands. >> >> I guessed so, but the document as it is now provides little new >> information, especially not on the fact that ntpdc's commands are >> mostly moved to mode 6. It would be nice to see them. >=20 > So, you would also like to see the mode 7 commands in this draft? Seems= > reasonable on first thought. >=20 > I queried folks for any new mode 6 commands, but received no responses.= > That is why there is no real new content between this draft and 1305. >=20 >> >>> From one of my programs I've developed I can read tha tthe >>> definition of the event codes changed (in an incompatible) between >>> NTPv3 and v4. Similar for the peer event codes. Variable names also >>> changed (some renamed, some dropped, some new). E.g.: "poll" vs. >>> "tc". Another candidate is "state": First introduced in NTPv4, then >>> dropped again. >> >> It's of little use when there is a command to read a variable (by >> name), when you don't know how the variable is named... >> >=20 > Are you saying that there needs to be a renaming effort within this > draft to align names with 5905? >=20 >>> >>> One of the items I want to complete if the draft is adopted is to=20 >>> modernize the text and align it with RFC 5905. >> >> Not to forget draft-odonoghue-ntpv4-control-02.txt... >=20 > Yes. That was a previous attempt to bring the mode 6 information up to = date. >=20 > Regards, > Brian >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > ntpwg mailing list > ntpwg@lists.ntp.org > http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg >=20 --Pm7W3L4AhTMGu0gMb4iIR2c8oJMBduqfP-- --FA7f74DrqufHe4OkF0BNFcqQx5vBxSD25 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJZCmX9AAoJEN8JD8bnb/w/g+oL/3T5AIRv0UPUDDS0C/oOC3Gz 8kNbsYV2leOd0maDpKxs/n5XvvXywVI/c5gXDn2TkskeLGt5wVSfdQ4sAZtzTNYH rSlb0Jm/shzR85iZ21W1Zj8ICuDVbvixxEQII29aTmSpLzD4xYTTr4bnTT8P4E21 sM6JrxIx2zZ0nux3gXFdXYnh0E2RhbcKCBi/vWxF7FEyIydJJs1xCWRJ/pJw0kqL YuGibkXBLQD77BSLTbYWED9gKyKG0HJpx7LOyS0kz63CpWzYzFMh7Nfzf/YjaCVW z9r4+99Sto7GwhCmwdiO9XWdnoniHrqlU21UF3UMCFAh3dC6VIBfNdHnGULJNVVd s3dIQ8b4NxPEsO47iFg1P5cXQbntjx0BuaoO5Od/Dz13ByBQUv0+cLywAV1mj8OE lODAaRFy7CY57F395mh8m6j+EbEz2YpvlV2a5+FP9x6ngC2DrE9U6SzzUiEnolEs w/NsH07uuWt6QApIxR7schNab3Yl937NoM40VICY2g== =f/2h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --FA7f74DrqufHe4OkF0BNFcqQx5vBxSD25-- --===============8535955854194454945== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg --===============8535955854194454945==-- From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Wed May 3 23:17:45 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 C9BAF12954B for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 23:17:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 YJ1ruHTJRWBN for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 23:17:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AB8E1294B5 for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 23:17:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5759E86DB18 for ; Thu, 4 May 2017 06:17:42 +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 E67A886D55E for ; Thu, 4 May 2017 06:17:33 +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 1d6A4q-000MG3-30 for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Thu, 04 May 2017 06:17:33 +0000 Received: from rrzmta2.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 746C072D41 for ; Thu, 4 May 2017 08:17:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.5.51]) by rrzmta2.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CA7369C0C for ; Thu, 4 May 2017 08:17:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 04 May 2017 08:17:21 +0200 Message-Id: <590AC770020000A10002615E@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 14.2.2 Date: Thu, 04 May 2017 08:17:20 +0200 From: "Ulrich Windl" To: "Scott Fluhrer(sfluhrer)" , , References: <1a0e9a0d48104183b336422529790c43@XCH-RTP-006.cisco.com> <9628002d-3917-684a-5f83-58b0ca62dd69@nwtime.org> In-Reply-To: <9628002d-3917-684a-5f83-58b0ca62dd69@nwtime.org> 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: Comments on draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-08 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" >>> Harlan Stenn schrieb am 04.05.2017 um 00:47 in Nachricht <9628002d-3917-684a-5f83-58b0ca62dd69@nwtime.org>: [...] > - encryption is of dubious value in a LAN setting. [...] I'd say "encryption may not be needed or wanted in some LAN environments" Regards, Ulrich _______________________________________________ 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 Sat May 6 20:23:03 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 2019F126C26 for ; Sat, 6 May 2017 20:23:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.79 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=isoc.org 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 1T4HsuJ9JAR0 for ; Sat, 6 May 2017 20:23:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85F911205F0 for ; Sat, 6 May 2017 20:23:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D941386DAD4 for ; Sun, 7 May 2017 03:23:00 +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 54F1286DAD3 for ; Sun, 7 May 2017 03:22:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bn3nam01on0049.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([104.47.33.49] helo=NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d7CmQ-000IYO-HT for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Sun, 07 May 2017 03:22:51 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isoc.org; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=nF+4USLc/IwdiHGa4/3JlQu4vkHb/6CC58NhY0UnKBc=; b=T4X0laHS9DeUBl0Iak0RVikWXF9G8fpsPpL3tkZIJ3nOPleVHrEnOdkuiBoqXlM+ipsyXxqI3kYaw/ik3GK1ZySEEN2m3E0+7g+XaEvAu2rW26Aisk1f9cFTRqm0kBOW6sEtob2rQgHN1r787RGYyVsBp4jPxBneg9uomTeMylc= Received: from CY4PR06MB2456.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.169.186.136) by CY4PR06MB2456.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.169.186.136) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1075.11; Sun, 7 May 2017 03:22:39 +0000 Received: from CY4PR06MB2456.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.169.186.136]) by CY4PR06MB2456.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.169.186.136]) with mapi id 15.01.1075.019; Sun, 7 May 2017 03:22:39 +0000 From: Karen O'Donoghue To: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" , "tictoc-chairs@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: announcement for NTP/TICTOC virtual interim meeting Thread-Index: AQHSxuEuhehOZg0QJE+HHeGMMr61zg== Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 03:22:39 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: lists.ntp.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; lists.ntp.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=isoc.org; x-originating-ip: [114.125.206.145] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CY4PR06MB2456; 7:b8sH+DhypYHT9WHbmi9iMRXdL8RA23iDqYa7ufFYSgSL65q72xOHuSJ3BL1KBdqkNb0PHJYqNhcNM8ie6Cc5B3hPAJLfy+fkMyKBykuotKU6y6awEbgViAcLO6xBrguxbf4ljD4jVe5GhtPyKP2/ciaWHp19fVfskwcH/bq7JZICM7Hosq5aGHP0V3JVPhWNkM2UuRBFicHkP+x4fx9G658PgJP4Ht8wQKDaMAZDGaXsVPQwSk+TTr5Myz9Vpe8t071yfLUHISxaE4r3f5AiaJar55YHbzuD4PIbyB77GYojhujkS3wdMIuVLMxDm5Hj8IZnpyBlzj4ZU3gRgyzwWw== x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 37dbac1d-ff2c-41fb-320f-08d494f850fb x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075)(201703131423075)(201703031133081); SRVR:CY4PR06MB2456; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(192374486261705)(257447070540367); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001)(93006095)(93001095)(6041248)(20161123560025)(20161123558100)(20161123564025)(20161123555025)(20161123562025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(6072148); SRVR:CY4PR06MB2456; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CY4PR06MB2456; x-forefront-prvs: 03008837BD x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(39410400002)(39400400002)(39830400002)(39450400003)(377454003)(497574002)(2906002)(4326008)(478600001)(82746002)(86362001)(575784001)(7736002)(3280700002)(33656002)(7906003)(25786009)(83716003)(2501003)(38730400002)(66066001)(122556002)(606005)(6486002)(54906002)(6436002)(50986999)(189998001)(6306002)(99286003)(77096006)(2900100001)(53936002)(236005)(6512007)(54356999)(6506006)(3660700001)(3846002)(102836003)(6116002)(8936002)(81166006)(8676002)(5660300001)(36756003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:CY4PR06MB2456; H:CY4PR06MB2456.namprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: isoc.org X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 07 May 2017 03:22:39.4559 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 89f84dfb-7285-4810-bc4d-8b9b5794554f X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR06MB2456 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 104.47.33.49 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: odonoghue@isoc.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: [ntpwg] announcement for NTP/TICTOC virtual interim meeting 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: "iesg-secretary@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7990403981250314530==" Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" --===============7990403981250314530== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B52444717ED447028976C68A69A83A59isocorg_" --_000_B52444717ED447028976C68A69A83A59isocorg_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Folks, There will be a virtual interim meeting of the IETF NTP/TICTOC working grou= ps on Thursday 25 May 2017 @ 11:00 am EDT (15:00 UTC). The draft agenda and= zoom coordinates are provided below. Regards, Karen Draft Agenda: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 1. Overview/summary/next steps for the NTS documents. draft-ietf-ntp-network-time-security (no discussion planned, but included here for completeness as part of the = suite of security documents thus far) draft-ietf-ntp-cms-for-nts-message draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp 2. BCP: Overview/summary/ next steps from the WGLC draft-ietf-ntp-bcp 3. Way forward for draft-dfranke-ntp-data-minimization-02 4. Way forward for draft-ietf-ntp-mac-00 5. Way forward for drafts related to extension fields and refid draft-ietf-ntp-refid-updates draft-stenn-ntp-suggest-refid draft-stenn-ntp-i-do 6. AOB Zoom information: Topic: IETF NTP/TICTOC virtual interim meeting Time: May 25, 2017 11:00 AM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://isoc.zoom.us/j/467750875 Or iPhone one-tap (US Toll): +14086380968,467750875# or +16465588656,46775= 0875# Or Telephone: Dial: +1 408 638 0968 (US Toll) or +1 646 558 8656 (US Toll) Meeting ID: 467 750 875 International numbers available: https://isoc.zoom.us/zoomconference?m= =3D4A-2eHSEGHNG7gUhLy1FLJkEKv0oFwO0 --_000_B52444717ED447028976C68A69A83A59isocorg_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <74C26113535E2B4087DE5CC592D4D89E@namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Folks,

There will be a virtual interim meeting of the IETF NTP/TIC= TOC working groups on Thursday 25 May 2017 @ 11:00 am EDT (15:00 UTC). The = draft agenda and zoom coordinates are provided below. 

Regards,
Karen


Draft Agenda: 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

1. Overview/summary/next steps for the NTS documents. =
draft-ietf-ntp-network-time-security 

 (no discussion planned, but included here for complet= eness as part of the suite of security documents thus far) 
draft-ietf-ntp-cms-for-nts-message 
draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp 

2. BCP: Overview/summary/ next steps from the WGLC
draft-ietf-ntp-bcp 

3. Way forward for 
draft-dfranke-ntp-data-minimization-02 

4. Way forward for 
draft-ietf-ntp-mac-00

5. Way forward for drafts related to extension fields and r= efid 
draft-ietf-ntp-refid-updates
draft-stenn-ntp-suggest-refid 
draft-stenn-ntp-i-do

6. AOB 

Zoom information: 

Topic: IETF NTP/TICTOC virtual interim meeting
Time: May 25, 2017 11:00 AM Eastern Time (US and Canada)

Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://isoc.zoom.us/j/467750875

Or iPhone one-tap (US Toll):  +14086380968,4677508= 75# or +16465588656,467750875#

Or Telephone:
    Dial: +1 408 638 0968 (US Toll) or +1= 646 558 8656 (US Toll)
    Meeting ID: 467 750 875
    International numbers available: https://isoc.zoom.us/zoomconference?m=3D4A-2eHSEGHNG7gUhLy1FLJkEKv0oFwO0

--_000_B52444717ED447028976C68A69A83A59isocorg_-- --===============7990403981250314530== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg --===============7990403981250314530==-- From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Tue May 9 01:13:40 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 C0B4A129B2E for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 01:13:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.808 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.808 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com 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 6Flx1nqLAbGV for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 01:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 911F8129AD5 for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 01:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E5B986DB25 for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 08:13:39 +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 2EC5986D831 for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 08:13:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com ([74.125.82.45]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d80Gp-000F7E-Kl for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Tue, 09 May 2017 08:13:32 +0000 Received: by mail-wm0-f45.google.com with SMTP id 142so91582413wma.1 for ; Tue, 09 May 2017 01:13:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=g8Pj3ZdmDYjH73Moa3M+uDzTLh+qTwDHKQAJczw9xn8=; b=YcYhM2EHY+6/aqwmOBVO+7iHIUkRHjNJTqR1WkgC6aqCsnqXrzto8DLkaYIz1iENzD O2G2Mnk2D2iN/7ZrVMfJJOTCukkyI7napF0cD5EaJU0CY8ydLjbf9hmhFUfS7u0jnq0s 3P8RdelxDkoax/cMhjHyf1DSYjzfS0yIk68AOUxpCz9Siv8OKuvimVpFeQ9DqEGIW14b KP+wMCSfLIrLajbpri+hvDeALZT7vluQ5oxIneqUXW83PlF14PoKPY7VNmxj8gw0xA4M fbtAxkWCzojKJStdSU3UemVwqcjk4DUL9xdRqjglf7ONHT3nwf+t6dBPgVYS9ggvN05a vF5g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=g8Pj3ZdmDYjH73Moa3M+uDzTLh+qTwDHKQAJczw9xn8=; b=TRIJZ6uYdIW0o4PmHMAq822NklJ4v+xlkgpRPNc22GQGmKyoJ7jbqoIy4kSeMW1pJt /FkKWh2LO2khxTe4CqEWWgnbnU3iNbdLtCHqMjNUaeOUcamIIzV90NjlyIw1bZtgxD8A dZBORHEM3M+yGZ/02gQHNgNSIPJBBVQmfwCCSxIWnC08TVpaxbA8ia7PzMBQYTDp49Oo LCRTeoOkZWWCq7C7pOH9CSnvYEyCa40X+6KoKIfSXrtOnVaZ49Me/Itt3fWEloB3Z++l mRyrjKflI4GVxWX8CTPuEKzVVbWgyelnXfd82202VmdddRwjzGYvbw9RV82B7Hp5/Phu 1cpg== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcBZH98MQajRHS3Jc7/7slheTLg/D/Nhvs7ofQ2I+AI0H+mtrLq1 5ITaiJk9MOqC1Q== X-Received: by 10.28.209.141 with SMTP id i135mr173340wmg.123.1494317601692; Tue, 09 May 2017 01:13:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.126] (host213-123-124-182.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [213.123.124.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w70sm157465wmd.10.2017.05.09.01.13.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 May 2017 01:13:21 -0700 (PDT) To: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" , "tictoc@ietf.org" From: Stewart Bryant Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 09:13:06 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 74.125.82.45 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: stewart.bryant@gmail.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: [ntpwg] Wireline delivery of precision time 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" An interesting piece in the London Times this morning on the importance of wireline delivery of precision time: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/londons-atomic-bombshell-for-hackers-gbst7gv2g?shareToken=d115d7d58f8d57385cc0d2c95e56682c - Stewart _______________________________________________ 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 Wed May 17 10:36:16 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 F249A12951E for ; Wed, 17 May 2017 10:36:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 mGNK5rDPig4j for ; Wed, 17 May 2017 10:36:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A16E1129AA3 for ; Wed, 17 May 2017 10:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1F4486DBFE for ; Wed, 17 May 2017 17:31:26 +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 09DBD86DB06 for ; Wed, 17 May 2017 17:08:17 +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 1dAz9O-000M1D-H9 for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 13:38:10 +0000 Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81DA4129C34; Wed, 17 May 2017 06:38:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: IESG Secretary To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.51.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <149502828139.6737.16204807926878538742@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 06:38:01 -0700 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 4.31.198.44 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: iesg-secretary@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: [ntpwg] Network Time Protocol (ntp) WG Virtual Meeting: 2017-05-25 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" The Network Time Protocol (ntp) Working Group will hold a virtual interim meeting on 2017-05-25 from 15:00 to 17:00 GMT. Agenda: 1. Overview/summary/next steps for the NTS documents. draft-ietf-ntp-network-time-security (no discussion planned, but included here for completeness as part of the suite of security documents thus far) draft-ietf-ntp-cms-for-nts-message draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp 2. BCP: Overview/summary/ next steps from the WGLC draft-ietf-ntp-bcp 3. Way forward for draft-dfranke-ntp-data-minimization-02 4. Way forward for draft-ietf-ntp-mac-00 5. Way forward for drafts related to extension fields and refid draft-ietf-ntp-refid-updates draft-stenn-ntp-suggest-refid draft-stenn-ntp-i-do 6. Overview/summary/next steps for the YANG model draft-wu-ntp-ntp-cfg 7. AOB Zoom information: Topic: IETF NTP/TICTOC virtual interim meeting Time: May 25, 2017 11:00 AM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://isoc.zoom.us/j/467750875 Or iPhone one-tap (US Toll): +14086380968,467750875# or +16465588656,467750875# Or Telephone: Dial: +1 408 638 0968 (US Toll) or +1 646 558 8656 (US Toll) Meeting ID: 467 750 875 International numbers available: https://isoc.zoom.us/zoomconference?m=4A-2eHSEGHNG7gUhLy1FLJkEKv0oFwO0 Information about remote participation: https://isoc.zoom.us/j/467750875 _______________________________________________ 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 Wed May 17 10:38:54 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 5DEE9128959 for ; Wed, 17 May 2017 10:38:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 pkhJUzCytptS for ; Wed, 17 May 2017 10:38:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F46A12EB74 for ; Wed, 17 May 2017 10:34:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FFA186E031 for ; Wed, 17 May 2017 17:32:44 +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 4A46A86DB58 for ; Wed, 17 May 2017 17:08:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.bs.ptb.de ([192.53.103.120]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1dAaoG-000Ec7-BH for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Tue, 16 May 2017 11:38:45 +0000 Received: from smtp-hub.bs.ptb.de (smtpint01.bs.ptb.de [141.25.87.32]) by mx1.bs.ptb.de with ESMTP id v4GBcSPP014185-v4GBcSPR014185 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 16 May 2017 13:38:28 +0200 Received: from rose.bs.ptb.de (rose.bs.ptb.de [141.25.85.201]) by smtp-hub.bs.ptb.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D9B13269DA; Tue, 16 May 2017 13:38:27 +0200 (CEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) In-Reply-To: References: From: dieter.sibold@ptb.de To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org, "tictoc-chairs@ietf.org" Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 13:38:19 +0200 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 192.53.103.120 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: dieter.sibold@ptb.de X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: [ntpwg] Updated agenda for the next NTP/TICTOC virtual interim meeting, 25 May 2017 @ 11:00 am EDT 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: iesg-secretary@ietf.org, Karen O'Donoghue Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6322865661277066600==" Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" --===============6322865661277066600== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 003FEEDFC1258122_=" --=_alternative 003FEEDFC1258122_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, please find a updated agenda for the next NTP/TICTOC virtual interim meetin= g. We shall also consider YANG data model for NTP. Draft Agenda =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 1. Overview/summary/next steps for the NTS documents.=C2=A0 draft-ietf-ntp-network-time-security=C2=A0 =C2=A0(no discussion planned, but included here for completeness as part of= the suite of security documents thus far)=C2=A0 draft-ietf-ntp-cms-for-nts-message=C2=A0 draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp=C2=A0 2. BCP: Overview/summary/ next steps from the WGLC draft-ietf-ntp-bcp=C2=A0 3. Way forward for=C2=A0 draft-dfranke-ntp-data-minimization-02=C2=A0 4. Way forward for=C2=A0 draft-ietf-ntp-mac-00 5. Way forward for drafts related to extension fields and refid=C2=A0 draft-ietf-ntp-refid-updates draft-stenn-ntp-suggest-refid=C2=A0 draft-stenn-ntp-i-do 6. Overview/summary/next steps for the YANG model draft-wu-ntp-ntp-cfg 7. AOB=C2=A0 Zoom information:=C2=A0 Topic: IETF NTP/TICTOC virtual interim meeting Time: May 25, 2017 11:00 AM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://isoc.zoom.us/j/467750875 Or iPhone one-tap (US Toll): =C2=A0+14086380968,467750875# or +16465588656,= 467750875# Or Telephone: =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Dial: +1 408 638 0968 (US Toll) or +1 646 558 8656 (US Toll) =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Meeting ID: 467 750 875 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 International numbers available: https://isoc.zoom.us/zoomcon= ference?m=3D4A-2eHSEGHNG7gUhLy1FLJkEKv0oFwO0 ------------------------------------- Dr. Dieter Sibold Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt Q.42 - Serversysteme und Datenhaltung QM-Verantwortlicher der Stelle IT Bundesallee 100=20 D-38116 Braunschweig Tel:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0+49-531-592-84 20 E-Mail: dieter.sibold@ptb.de --=_alternative 003FEEDFC1258122_= Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-ID: <> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<= br>
Hi all,

please find a updated agenda for the next NTP/TICTOC virtual in= terim meeting. We shall also consider YANG data model for NTP.



<= div style=3D"font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
Draft Agend= a
=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

1. Overview/summary/next steps for the NTS doc= uments. 
draft-ietf-ntp-network-time-security 

 (no discussion planned= , but included here for completeness as part of the suite of security docum= ents thus far) 
draft-ietf-ntp-cms-for-nts-message 
<= font face=3D"Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">draft-ietf-ntp-using-nt= s-for-ntp 

2. BCP: Overview/summary/ next steps from the WGLC
<= div>draft-ietf-ntp-bcp=  
draft-dfranke-ntp-data-minimization-02 

4. Way forwar= d for 
draft-ietf-ntp-mac-00

5. Way forward for drafts related to extension fiel= ds and refid 
draft-ietf-ntp-refid-updates
draft-stenn-ntp-suggest-refid 
draft-= stenn-ntp-i-do

6. Overview/summary/next steps for the YANG model
draft-wu-ntp-ntp-cfg=

=

=
7. A= OB 


Zoom information: 

Topic: IETF NTP/TICTOC virtual interim meeting
Time: May = 25, 2017 11:00 AM Eastern Time (US and Canada)

Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or= Android: https://isoc.zoom.us/j/467750875

Or iPhone one-tap (US Toll):  +1= 4086380968,467750875# or +16465588656,467750875#

Or Telephone:
=     Dial: +1= 408 638 0968 (US Toll) or +1 646 558 8656 (US Toll)
    Meeting ID: 4= 67 750 875
    International numbers available: https://isoc.zoom.us/z= oomconference?m=3D4A-2eHSEGHNG7gUhLy1FLJkEKv0oFwO0

------------= -------------------------
--=_alternative 003FEEDFC1258122_=-- --===============6322865661277066600== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg --===============6322865661277066600==-- From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Thu May 18 05:08:37 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 5105B1293EC for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 05:08:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.501 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 jCz5j7HbXdZU for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 05:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 700CF12EBE4 for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 05:03:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2025386DBA9 for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 12:03:05 +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 E242286DAB8 for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 12:03:01 +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 1dBK8s-00003b-1y for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Thu, 18 May 2017 12:03:01 +0000 Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1C6612EB57; Thu, 18 May 2017 05:02:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.51.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <149510897275.6745.18077638723656139048@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 05:02:52 -0700 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-mode-6-cmds-01.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 : Control Messages Protocol for Use with Network Time Protocol Version 4 Authors : David L. Mills Brian Haberman Filename : draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-01.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2017-05-18 Abstract: This document describes the structure of the control messages used with the Network Time Protocol. These control messages can be used to monitor and control the Network Time Protocol application running on any IP network attached computer. The information in this document was originally described in Appendix B of RFC 1305. The goal of this document is to provide a historic description of the control messages. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-01 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-01 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 Thu May 18 05:13:53 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 D78F41279EB for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 05:13:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 oCSE2MKo64te for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 05:13:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC78B12EB61 for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 05:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BCB386DBAD for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 12:08:29 +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 31E4086DAB8 for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 12:08:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from uillean.fuaim.com ([206.197.161.140]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1dBKE5-0000Fk-Hx for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Thu, 18 May 2017 12:08:26 +0000 Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A4C2880E1 for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 05:08:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clemson.local (swifi-nat.jhuapl.edu [128.244.87.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 525A93280AE4 for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 05:08:16 -0700 (PDT) To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org References: <149510897275.6745.18077638723656139048@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Brian Haberman Message-ID: <31fde040-6dd3-938b-c83f-0ee9571a171f@innovationslab.net> Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 08:08:03 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <149510897275.6745.18077638723656139048@ietfa.amsl.com> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 206.197.161.140 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: brian@innovationslab.NET X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-01.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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6117114765102809301==" Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --===============6117114765102809301== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tjTAuHhC5IxRCx876uICfdJWfXRCkH8fP" This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --tjTAuHhC5IxRCx876uICfdJWfXRCkH8fP Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="QowqIKlVMnMUp3Fir5Lnm1gqVjGwTdwl2"; protected-headers="v1" From: Brian Haberman To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Message-ID: <31fde040-6dd3-938b-c83f-0ee9571a171f@innovationslab.net> Subject: Re: [ntpwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-01.txt References: <149510897275.6745.18077638723656139048@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <149510897275.6745.18077638723656139048@ietfa.amsl.com> --QowqIKlVMnMUp3Fir5Lnm1gqVjGwTdwl2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable All, This version incorporates changes related to several of the status word values. These changes were mainly gleaned from the earlier work done in draft-odonoghue-ntpv4-control. If you are familiar with the mode 6 commands, please give this version a review and provide feedback on what's missing/incorrect. Regards, Brian On 5/18/17 8:02 AM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts dire= ctories. > This draft is a work item of the Network Time Protocol of the IETF. >=20 > Title : Control Messages Protocol for Use with Networ= k Time Protocol Version 4 > Authors : David L. Mills > Brian Haberman > Filename : draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-01.txt > Pages : 18 > Date : 2017-05-18 >=20 > Abstract: > This document describes the structure of the control messages used > with the Network Time Protocol. These control messages can be used > to monitor and control the Network Time Protocol application running= > on any IP network attached computer. The information in this > document was originally described in Appendix B of RFC 1305. The > goal of this document is to provide a historic description of the > control messages. >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds/ >=20 > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-01 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-01 >=20 > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-01 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submi= ssion > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > ntpwg mailing list > ntpwg@lists.ntp.org > http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg >=20 --QowqIKlVMnMUp3Fir5Lnm1gqVjGwTdwl2-- --tjTAuHhC5IxRCx876uICfdJWfXRCkH8fP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZHY6vAAoJEBOZRqCi7goqeekH/ikRMlNSl6dNyNyq24L+TkYm tKVoIcubS3481Y4Ki+JlnMA1AMDbef/7P48ih3L9baeB6SfRQ58z174zseUb4Cd7 HflsUHf+wuId6/0GQTXkdPMgeRuKq60U2lYABjRQCBPOpZuDUDlepvuky1xUBGBP bzTvUA8cm2dc5nQZHGUVBXvkrnzrz2xn376HKz28DABWJBbHQWKp4syyRB8vAYJC rcAhSW3Cd0C6Ot8V7I1+hL9LR3QEj/X9uH/TZdQzd/fPADgEgPEK5MKHClcYLwQh 5qPkbsnKQyyTkhiJwYPIHY6sxqmnhTrDIr+2pyX+bk6Oa0S5p/RV/lGPXV1zKsE= =GiuO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tjTAuHhC5IxRCx876uICfdJWfXRCkH8fP-- --===============6117114765102809301== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg --===============6117114765102809301==-- From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Thu May 18 07:25:20 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 9945C12EB7B for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 07:25:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 zqjRa88iRUXT for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 07:25:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6F06129AF9 for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 07:19:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F9C386DBA7 for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 14:19:46 +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 580C486DB2F for ; Wed, 17 May 2017 17:08:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rfc-editor.org ([4.31.198.49]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1dAImj-000OFE-5w for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Mon, 15 May 2017 16:23:56 +0000 Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id B9782B80C83; Mon, 15 May 2017 09:23:44 -0700 (PDT) To: mills@udel.edu, jrmii@isc.org, jack.burbank@jhuapl.edu, william.kasch@jhuapl.edu, suresh.krishnan@gmail.com, terry.manderson@icann.org, dieter.sibold@ptb.de, odonoghue@isoc.org X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20170515162344.B9782B80C83@rfc-editor.org> Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 09:23:44 -0700 (PDT) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 4.31.198.49 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: wwwrun@rfc-editor.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 18 May 2017 14:19:43 +0000 Subject: [ntpwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5905 (5020) 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, wferi@niif.hu, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" VGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBlcnJhdGEgcmVwb3J0IGhhcyBiZWVuIHN1Ym1pdHRlZCBmb3IgUkZDNTkw NSwKIk5ldHdvcmsgVGltZSBQcm90b2NvbCBWZXJzaW9uIDQ6IFByb3RvY29sIGFuZCBBbGdvcml0 aG1zIFNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24iLgoKLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0KWW91IG1heSByZXZpZXcgdGhlIHJlcG9ydCBiZWxvdyBhbmQgYXQ6Cmh0dHA6Ly93d3cucmZj LWVkaXRvci5vcmcvZXJyYXRhL2VpZDUwMjAKCi0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tClR5cGU6IFRlY2huaWNhbApSZXBvcnRlZCBieTogRmVyZW5jIFfDoWduZXIgPHdm ZXJpQG5paWYuaHU+CgpTZWN0aW9uOiA4CgpPcmlnaW5hbCBUZXh0Ci0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0KdGhl dGEgPSBUKEIpIC0gVChBKSA9IDEvMiAqIFsoVDItVDEpICsgKFQzLVQ0KV0KCkNvcnJlY3RlZCBU ZXh0Ci0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tCnRoZXRhID0gVChCKSAtIFQoQSkgPSAxLzIgKiBbKFQyLVQxKSAr IChUNC1UMyldCgpOb3RlcwotLS0tLQpUaGUgY29ycmVzcG9uZGluZyBjb2RlIGxpbmUgaW4gQS41 LjEuMS4gYWdyZWVzIHdpdGggdGhpcyBjb3JyZWN0aW9uOgoKb2Zmc2V0ID0gKExGUDJEKHItPnJl YyAtIHItPm9yZykgKyBMRlAyRChyLT5kc3QgLSByLT54bXQpKSAvIDI7Cgp0YWtpbmcgRmlndXJl IDcgaW50byBhY2NvdW50OgoKfCBvcmcgICAgICAgfCBUMSAgICAgICAgIHwgb3JpZ2luIHRpbWVz dGFtcCAgICAgIHwKfCByZWMgICAgICAgfCBUMiAgICAgICAgIHwgcmVjZWl2ZSB0aW1lc3RhbXAg ICAgIHwKfCB4bXQgICAgICAgfCBUMyAgICAgICAgIHwgdHJhbnNtaXQgdGltZXN0YW1wICAgIHwK fCBkc3QgICAgICAgfCBUNCAgICAgICAgIHwgZGVzdGluYXRpb24gdGltZXN0YW1wIHwKCkluc3Ry dWN0aW9uczoKLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQpUaGlzIGVycmF0dW0gaXMgY3VycmVudGx5IHBvc3RlZCBh cyAiUmVwb3J0ZWQiLiBJZiBuZWNlc3NhcnksIHBsZWFzZQp1c2UgIlJlcGx5IEFsbCIgdG8gZGlz Y3VzcyB3aGV0aGVyIGl0IHNob3VsZCBiZSB2ZXJpZmllZCBvcgpyZWplY3RlZC4gV2hlbiBhIGRl Y2lzaW9uIGlzIHJlYWNoZWQsIHRoZSB2ZXJpZnlpbmcgcGFydHkgIApjYW4gbG9nIGluIHRvIGNo YW5nZSB0aGUgc3RhdHVzIGFuZCBlZGl0IHRoZSByZXBvcnQsIGlmIG5lY2Vzc2FyeS4gCgotLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQpSRkM1OTA1IChkcmFmdC1pZXRmLW50 cC1udHB2NC1wcm90by0xMykKLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0K VGl0bGUgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA6IE5ldHdvcmsgVGltZSBQcm90b2NvbCBWZXJzaW9uIDQ6IFBy b3RvY29sIGFuZCBBbGdvcml0aG1zIFNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24KUHVibGljYXRpb24gRGF0ZSAgICA6 IEp1bmUgMjAxMApBdXRob3IocykgICAgICAgICAgIDogRC4gTWlsbHMsIEouIE1hcnRpbiwgRWQu LCBKLiBCdXJiYW5rLCBXLiBLYXNjaApDYXRlZ29yeSAgICAgICAgICAgIDogUFJPUE9TRUQgU1RB TkRBUkQKU291cmNlICAgICAgICAgICAgICA6IE5ldHdvcmsgVGltZSBQcm90b2NvbApBcmVhICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgIDogSW50ZXJuZXQKU3RyZWFtICAgICAgICAgICAgICA6IElFVEYKVmVyaWZ5 aW5nIFBhcnR5ICAgICA6IElFU0cKX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX18KbnRwd2cgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0Cm50cHdnQGxpc3RzLm50cC5vcmcKaHR0cDov L2xpc3RzLm50cC5vcmcvbGlzdGluZm8vbnRwd2c= From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Fri May 19 00:13:54 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 840D812EB77 for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 00:13:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 gQCz54OjsZDh for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 00:13:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 564AE12EC15 for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 00:09:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BE4D86DBA8 for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 07:09:10 +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 F19C686DAB8 for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 07:09:06 +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 1dBc1x-000DGx-UW for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Fri, 19 May 2017 07:09:06 +0000 Received: from rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id B1F7B57640 for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 09:08:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.5.51]) by rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F3814F900 for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 09:08:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 19 May 2017 09:08:54 +0200 Message-Id: <591E9A03020000A10002678A@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 14.2.2 Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 09:08:51 +0200 From: "Ulrich Windl" To: References: <20170515162344.B9782B80C83@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: <20170515162344.B9782B80C83@rfc-editor.org> 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: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5905 (5020) 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="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" SGkhCgpJIGZvdW5kIHRoYXQgSSBoYWQgc2VudCB0aGlzIGlzc3VlIHRvIERhdmUgTWlsbHMgbG9u Z2VyIHRpbWUgYWdvLCBhbmQgaXQgc2VlbXMKdGhlIGJ1ZyB3YXMgaW4gUkZDIDEzMDUgKG5vdCAx MzAzIGFzIG1pcy10eXBlZCBpbiBteSBtZXNzYWdlKSBhcyB3ZWxsOgoKLS0tcXVvdGUgKDIwLjEw LjIwMTUgMTM6MTgpLS0tCkkgaG9wZSB5b3UnbGwgZXhjdXNlIGEgc3R1cGlkIHF1ZXN0aW9uLCBi dXQgaXQgc2VlbXMgIkknbSBzaXR0aW5nIG9uIHRoZQp3aXJlIjoKVGhlIE9mZnNldCAodGhldGEp IGFzIGRlZmluZWQgcGVyIFJGQyA1OTA1LCBwYWdlIDI5IChPZmZzZXQgPSAoKFQyIC0gVDEpICsg KFQzCi0gVDQpKSAvIDIpIHNlZW1zIHRvIGJlIGV4YWN0bHkgaGFsZiBvZiB0aGUgZGVsYXkgKGRl bHRhKSBpZiB0aGUgY2xvY2tzIGFyZSBpbgpwZXJmZWN0IHN5bmMuIEl0IHNlZW1zIEknbSBtaXNz aW5nIHNvbWV0aGluZywgYnV0IEkgY2Fubm90IHNlZSBpdCEgSSB0cmllZCB0bwp2aXN1YWxpemUg dGhlIGNhbGN1bGF0aW9ucyAoc2VlIGF0dGFjaGVkIGltYWdlKSwgYnV0IHN0aWxsIEkgdGhpbmsg c29tZXRoaW5nIGlzCm1pc3NpbmcuIEFzIFJGQyAxMzAzIGhhcyB0aGUgc2FtZSBkZWZpbml0aW9u LCBJIGJlbGlldmUgdG8gYmUgd3JvbmcsIGJ1dCB3b3VsZAp5b3UgcGxlYXNlIHRlYWNoIG1lPwot LS1lbmQgcXVvdGUtLS0KClJlZ2FyZHMsClVscmljaAoKPj4+IFJGQyBFcnJhdGEgU3lzdGVtIDxy ZmMtZWRpdG9yQHJmYy1lZGl0b3Iub3JnPiBzY2hyaWViIGFtIDE1LjA1LjIwMTcgdW0KMTg6MjMg aW4KTmFjaHJpY2h0IDwyMDE3MDUxNTE2MjM0NC5COTc4MkI4MEM4M0ByZmMtZWRpdG9yLm9yZz46 Cj4gVGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBlcnJhdGEgcmVwb3J0IGhhcyBiZWVuIHN1Ym1pdHRlZCBmb3IgUkZD NTkwNSwKPiAiTmV0d29yayBUaW1lIFByb3RvY29sIFZlcnNpb24gNDogUHJvdG9jb2wgYW5kIEFs Z29yaXRobXMgU3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiIuCj4gCj4gLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0KPiBZb3UgbWF5IHJldmlldyB0aGUgcmVwb3J0IGJlbG93IGFuZCBhdDoKPiBo dHRwOi8vd3d3LnJmYy1lZGl0b3Iub3JnL2VycmF0YS9laWQ1MDIwIAo+IAo+IC0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tCj4gVHlwZTogVGVjaG5pY2FsCj4gUmVwb3J0ZWQg Ynk6IEZlcmVuYyBXw6FnbmVyIDx3ZmVyaUBuaWlmLmh1Pgo+IAo+IFNlY3Rpb246IDgKPiAKPiBP cmlnaW5hbCBUZXh0Cj4gLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQo+IHRoZXRhID0gVChCKSAtIFQoQSkgPSAxLzIg KiBbKFQyLVQxKSArIChUMy1UNCldCj4gCj4gQ29ycmVjdGVkIFRleHQKPiAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LQo+IHRoZXRhID0gVChCKSAtIFQoQSkgPSAxLzIgKiBbKFQyLVQxKSArIChUNC1UMyldCj4gCj4g Tm90ZXMKPiAtLS0tLQo+IFRoZSBjb3JyZXNwb25kaW5nIGNvZGUgbGluZSBpbiBBLjUuMS4xLiBh Z3JlZXMgd2l0aCB0aGlzIGNvcnJlY3Rpb246Cj4gCj4gb2Zmc2V0ID0gKExGUDJEKHItPnJlYyAt IHItPm9yZykgKyBMRlAyRChyLT5kc3QgLSByLT54bXQpKSAvIDI7Cj4gCj4gdGFraW5nIEZpZ3Vy ZSA3IGludG8gYWNjb3VudDoKPiAKPiB8IG9yZyAgICAgICB8IFQxICAgICAgICAgfCBvcmlnaW4g dGltZXN0YW1wICAgICAgfAo+IHwgcmVjICAgICAgIHwgVDIgICAgICAgICB8IHJlY2VpdmUgdGlt ZXN0YW1wICAgICB8Cj4gfCB4bXQgICAgICAgfCBUMyAgICAgICAgIHwgdHJhbnNtaXQgdGltZXN0 YW1wICAgIHwKPiB8IGRzdCAgICAgICB8IFQ0ICAgICAgICAgfCBkZXN0aW5hdGlvbiB0aW1lc3Rh bXAgfAo+IAo+IEluc3RydWN0aW9uczoKPiAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tCj4gVGhpcyBlcnJhdHVtIGlz IGN1cnJlbnRseSBwb3N0ZWQgYXMgIlJlcG9ydGVkIi4gSWYgbmVjZXNzYXJ5LCBwbGVhc2UKPiB1 c2UgIlJlcGx5IEFsbCIgdG8gZGlzY3VzcyB3aGV0aGVyIGl0IHNob3VsZCBiZSB2ZXJpZmllZCBv cgo+IHJlamVjdGVkLiBXaGVuIGEgZGVjaXNpb24gaXMgcmVhY2hlZCwgdGhlIHZlcmlmeWluZyBw YXJ0eSAgCj4gY2FuIGxvZyBpbiB0byBjaGFuZ2UgdGhlIHN0YXR1cyBhbmQgZWRpdCB0aGUgcmVw b3J0LCBpZiBuZWNlc3NhcnkuIAo+IAo+IC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tCj4gUkZDNTkwNSAoZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1udHAtbnRwdjQtcHJvdG8tMTMpCj4gLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0KPiBUaXRsZSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDog TmV0d29yayBUaW1lIFByb3RvY29sIFZlcnNpb24gNDogUHJvdG9jb2wgYW5kIAo+IEFsZ29yaXRo bXMgU3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbgo+IFB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIERhdGUgICAgOiBKdW5lIDIwMTAKPiBBdXRo b3IocykgICAgICAgICAgIDogRC4gTWlsbHMsIEouIE1hcnRpbiwgRWQuLCBKLiBCdXJiYW5rLCBX LiBLYXNjaAo+IENhdGVnb3J5ICAgICAgICAgICAgOiBQUk9QT1NFRCBTVEFOREFSRAo+IFNvdXJj ZSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgOiBOZXR3b3JrIFRpbWUgUHJvdG9jb2wKPiBBcmVhICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgIDogSW50ZXJuZXQKPiBTdHJlYW0gICAgICAgICAgICAgIDogSUVURgo+IFZlcmlmeWluZyBQ YXJ0eSAgICAgOiBJRVNHCj4gX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX18KPiBudHB3ZyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QKPiBudHB3Z0BsaXN0cy5udHAub3JnIAo+IGh0 dHA6Ly9saXN0cy5udHAub3JnL2xpc3RpbmZvL250cHdnIAoKCgpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXwpudHB3ZyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QKbnRwd2dAbGlz dHMubnRwLm9yZwpodHRwOi8vbGlzdHMubnRwLm9yZy9saXN0aW5mby9udHB3Zw== From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Fri May 19 06:07:14 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 D33C0129A8E for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 06:07:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.59 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com 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 21LtfdxdWfxu for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 06:07:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA16C1270B4 for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 06:00:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D91586DBAF for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 13:00:50 +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 716CF86DAE2 for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 13:00:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1dBhWJ-0004ri-Al for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Fri, 19 May 2017 13:00:46 +0000 Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id 7so1208459wmo.1 for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 06:00:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/sDoyB3m0ypz9HzE0GbIpvIpNgxL1Gy/pHlh4cjur50=; b=LylxhSlSAqtKOUVbXKD9aRcTnY1PtZyBE0/cRgmco6csouLnc4ocQM8VfmqffigQHe BTkJAZ9WK7154YeI1rBMuD39Iz1xsw937mQs3JeZp5u+fsrmJlwe+TY58Mg+GLoNuakY 6IERQAfcKjqIlhSFCS6d2ye0LykXkra7xiHruH+qdf/csj1uNFw7WJjlWAXIqCGHch4i rJsWXdG65sa8RrhdnpeklOJNHq++CgVPTjxWfMKepT7Jc6bmthg40JESh+f7at/oftLG Dj/ooBpu18E1Pgag6b3EmgKNvOfYeez35qw2OzQ6WhSOqllQGcgpfEB9H7bsBwxgFzUA uA+w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/sDoyB3m0ypz9HzE0GbIpvIpNgxL1Gy/pHlh4cjur50=; b=masFMjHdb+QG62PTMMxMzPmP88Xa8ZCElkKsFtSs1FbNTLSm8cQHIFektumd9HYOVe /YVVlz2WCZzApdzA2Sl0LjlPJ570ykpwEGjsJ3566mBXdb/s1nHrNp2V11f7edanQlWR JDSOPfqMm/SwYGpWMeS9AVGnhZQpHAE+Vn5eJdjbFjhmc+HVqcV6R+yS75JiIBuP6wgE FoBHAWCkVHTtPoTRVm0K3d+EatPHwYysbaLxHD1eChOt/HcSuwxifPhmYeDp9lIra7Dl w4KPasnG/fuF/gHPvtrsYNmNjsagZFTQOzvBRABnMVzXWXNBfw60JgsrSHaJdHAED2nK S2QA== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCYdCtqTzFUtk45acay26euNzu5MrXHpux4NAg2yF7kjeafZGvu 2qC7e5ftL9d+PIoXY780k4Bp7IjUGQ== X-Received: by 10.80.134.155 with SMTP id r27mr7033773eda.133.1495198838000; Fri, 19 May 2017 06:00:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.208.135 with HTTP; Fri, 19 May 2017 06:00:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <591E9A03020000A10002678A@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> References: <20170515162344.B9782B80C83@rfc-editor.org> <591E9A03020000A10002678A@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> From: Tal Mizrahi Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 16:00:37 +0300 Message-ID: To: Ulrich Windl X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 74.125.82.43 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Antw: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5905 (5020) 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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1793665881261910242==" Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" --===============1793665881261910242== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045c237e9b92ea054fe01b6b" --f403045c237e9b92ea054fe01b6b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ulrich, >The Offset (theta) as defined per RFC 5905, page 29 (Offset =3D ((T2 - T1)= + (T3 >- T4)) / 2) seems to be exactly half of the delay (delta) if the clocks are in >perfect sync. Not exactly. According to RFC 5905, page 29: The offset theta is given by the following value: theta=3D((T2-T1)+(T3-T4))/2 The delay (after slightly rearranging the terms) is: delta=3D((T2-T1)+(T4-T= 3)) Not just a factor of 2. Intuitively, we can observe two things: - When the offset is zero we will have theta=3D0 and thus (T2-T1)=3D(T4-T3= ), which means our delay measurement would appear to be perfectly symmetric. - If the delay is zero (or delay << offset), then it is clear why (T2-T1) is one measurement of the offset, and (T3-T4) is another measurement of the offset, so theta is simply the average between these two measurements. My two cents... Tal. On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Ulrich Windl < Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote: > Hi! > > I found that I had sent this issue to Dave Mills longer time ago, and it > seems > the bug was in RFC 1305 (not 1303 as mis-typed in my message) as well: > > ---quote (20.10.2015 13:18)--- > I hope you'll excuse a stupid question, but it seems "I'm sitting on the > wire": > The Offset (theta) as defined per RFC 5905, page 29 (Offset =3D ((T2 - T1= ) + > (T3 > - T4)) / 2) seems to be exactly half of the delay (delta) if the clocks > are in > perfect sync. It seems I'm missing something, but I cannot see it! I trie= d > to > visualize the calculations (see attached image), but still I think > something is > missing. As RFC 1303 has the same definition, I believe to be wrong, but > would > you please teach me? > ---end quote--- > > Regards, > Ulrich > > >>> RFC Errata System schrieb am 15.05.2017 u= m > 18:23 in > Nachricht <20170515162344.B9782B80C83@rfc-editor.org>: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5905, > > "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification= ". > > > > -------------------------------------- > > You may review the report below and at: > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5020 > > > > -------------------------------------- > > Type: Technical > > Reported by: Ferenc W=C3=A1gner > > > > Section: 8 > > > > Original Text > > ------------- > > theta =3D T(B) - T(A) =3D 1/2 * [(T2-T1) + (T3-T4)] > > > > Corrected Text > > -------------- > > theta =3D T(B) - T(A) =3D 1/2 * [(T2-T1) + (T4-T3)] > > > > Notes > > ----- > > The corresponding code line in A.5.1.1. agrees with this correction: > > > > offset =3D (LFP2D(r->rec - r->org) + LFP2D(r->dst - r->xmt)) / 2; > > > > taking Figure 7 into account: > > > > | org | T1 | origin timestamp | > > | rec | T2 | receive timestamp | > > | xmt | T3 | transmit timestamp | > > | dst | T4 | destination timestamp | > > > > Instructions: > > ------------- > > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > > > -------------------------------------- > > RFC5905 (draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-proto-13) > > -------------------------------------- > > Title : Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and > > Algorithms Specification > > Publication Date : June 2010 > > Author(s) : D. Mills, J. Martin, Ed., J. Burbank, W. Kasch > > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > > Source : Network Time Protocol > > Area : Internet > > Stream : IETF > > Verifying Party : IESG > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > --f403045c237e9b92ea054fe01b6b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Ulrich,

>The Offset (theta) as defined per RFC 5905, page 29 (Offset =3D ((= T2 - T1) + (T3
>- T4)) / 2) seems to be exactly half of the delay (delta) if = the clocks are in
>perfect sync.

Not exac= tly.

According to RFC 5905, page 29:
The= offset theta is given by the following value: =C2=A0 theta=3D((T2-T1)+(T3-= T4))/2
The delay (after slightly rearranging the terms) is: delta= =3D((T2-T1)+(T4-T3))

Not just a factor of 2.
=

Intuitively, we can observe two things:

<= /div>
- When the offset is zero we will have theta=3D0 and =C2=A0thus (= T2-T1)=3D(T4-T3), which means our delay measurement would appear to be perf= ectly symmetric.
- If the delay is zero (or delay << offset= ), then it is clear why (T2-T1) is one measurement of the offset, and (T3-T= 4) is another measurement of the offset, so theta is simply the average bet= ween these two measurements.

My two cents...
=
Tal.


On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
Hi!

I found that I had sent this issue to Dave Mills longer time ago, and it se= ems
the bug was in RFC 1305 (not 1303 as mis-typed in my message) as well:

---quote (20.10.2015 13:18)---
I hope you'll excuse a stupid question, but it seems "I'm sitt= ing on the
wire":
The Offset (theta) as defined per RFC 5905, page 29 (Offset =3D ((T2 - T1) = + (T3
- T4)) / 2) seems to be exactly half of the delay (delta) if the clocks are= in
perfect sync. It seems I'm missing something, but I cannot see it! I tr= ied to
visualize the calculations (see attached image), but still I think somethin= g is
missing. As RFC 1303 has the same definition, I believe to be wrong, but wo= uld
you please teach me?
---end quote---

Regards,
Ulrich

>>> RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> schrieb am 15.05.2017 um
18:23 in
Nachricht <= 20170515162344.B9782B80C83@rfc-editor.org>:
> The following erra= ta report has been submitted for RFC5905,
> "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specifi= cation".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5020
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Ferenc W=C3=A1gner <w= feri@niif.hu>
>
> Section: 8
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> theta =3D T(B) - T(A) =3D 1/2 * [(T2-T1) + (T3-T4)]
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> theta =3D T(B) - T(A) =3D 1/2 * [(T2-T1) + (T4-T3)]
>
> Notes
> -----
> The corresponding code line in A.5.1.1. agrees with this correction: >
> offset =3D (LFP2D(r->rec - r->org) + LFP2D(r->dst - r->xmt= )) / 2;
>
> taking Figure 7 into account:
>
> | org=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| T1=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= | origin timestamp=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 |
> | rec=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| T2=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= | receive timestamp=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0|
> | xmt=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| T3=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= | transmit timestamp=C2=A0 =C2=A0 |
> | dst=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| T4=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= | destination timestamp |
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary= , please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or<= br> > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC5905 (draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-proto-13)
> --------------------------------------
> Title=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: Network = Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and
> Algorithms Specification
> Publication Date=C2=A0 =C2=A0 : June 2010
> Author(s)=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: D. Mills, J. Marti= n, Ed., J. Burbank, W. Kasch
> Category=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : PROPOSED STANDARD<= br> > Source=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : Network Time = Protocol
> Area=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : Internet=
> Stream=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : IETF
> Verifying Party=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: IESG
> _______________________________________________
> 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

--f403045c237e9b92ea054fe01b6b-- --===============1793665881261910242== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg --===============1793665881261910242==-- From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sat May 20 07:52:31 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 5A3F11293EE for ; Sat, 20 May 2017 07:52:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.809 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.809 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com 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 79MuurRd607g for ; Sat, 20 May 2017 07:52:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CA46128D40 for ; Sat, 20 May 2017 07:52:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C2DC86DBA9 for ; Sat, 20 May 2017 14:52:29 +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 6BCED86DAB8 for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 14:53:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wm0-f50.google.com ([74.125.82.50]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1dBMoB-000644-MQ for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Thu, 18 May 2017 14:53:51 +0000 Received: by mail-wm0-f50.google.com with SMTP id 70so11697596wmq.1 for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 07:53:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=I/+FPNKKQsOFH7pIVMolj88vnAeQf5+ms92vEy3De0w=; b=us5/8buZxILI9Au2TdBFy2bU6Vn0VSUTBFPxAtQtHdSnwz+7kHj4en0hUnxiutLrMB 0229fDzvq9rqtC4t20oTLlVJbhoxUmqCbbaxzrqd3Z335rAtapmexhuxOhvCURELzQbE S1Argp7LNXtSGY+VGYQ91bny8B/t8tihAXueBASdRJ9WRGWY8gm/sfhYCWthkP3XDinq FgI1vPKP8WpRipkflMHIQQhNZlNTkjlcuVSTCr9a0Lq5FSlgfzy+zGRm/jK1oPAg0MXk /mggxfYLlb91XqKlRppzIHhjpNz4HDAE3U4Lo7qiDSAeM4o6G6ytpxSchkDmkF5vLt8p KuEA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=I/+FPNKKQsOFH7pIVMolj88vnAeQf5+ms92vEy3De0w=; b=S9G4ZthHYKVlm4F6i1pkOayhxwMmGQQNIy+XYiJuqKHMXz2ggPvBET+Hf0d4EnR0Ee FI4DNgxshbrUk9hHxANxsoM+75hyrzfH0Xv1nnNbRbK6f9qTnqX27AWC3FNSvMg9x9V1 v+aqVMGRveaTiGsSEg85vdUjwL4ZYb9NyVGCZgIhtdQvp3bNDACf+cFijUKjpXD0k2kH gFqiPx0/Yb7BhObwKgzYuxOslwCStpcW+Rr51EIu+pl3BR9us7ARzjyU+mcSghfWd6XV F58UnsBwTn+HN+WrI9ITBBMDD7islRIG80dM1MKBNxiIqv9lLnSE0KmxaJmqmW4I2YXs wPWw== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAaAhUCwtm5qx0C5yspeRfM/7l2CbZ2u+D03e20Ro0eT2dnqUCr Qsr2Up7glcUU+87wcaWYwu52vh3Shw== X-Received: by 10.80.167.163 with SMTP id i32mr3722000edc.101.1495119222529; Thu, 18 May 2017 07:53:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.140.67 with HTTP; Thu, 18 May 2017 07:53:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20170515162344.B9782B80C83@rfc-editor.org> References: <20170515162344.B9782B80C83@rfc-editor.org> From: Daniel Franke Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:53:41 -0400 Message-ID: To: RFC Errata System X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 74.125.82.50 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: dfoxfranke@gmail.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 20 May 2017 14:52:26 +0000 Subject: Re: [ntpwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5905 (5020) 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: william.kasch@jhuapl.edu, jrmii@isc.org, odonoghue@isoc.org, wferi@niif.hu, ntpwg@lists.ntp.org, suresh.krishnan@gmail.com, terry.manderson@icann.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" On 5/15/17, RFC Errata System wrote: > Original Text > ------------- > theta = T(B) - T(A) = 1/2 * [(T2-T1) + (T3-T4)] > > Corrected Text > -------------- > theta = T(B) - T(A) = 1/2 * [(T2-T1) + (T4-T3)] Perhaps the code in the appendix is wrong, but the spec is correct as-is. Suppose B is 5 seconds ahead of A. At t_1=0, A sends a request which takes 0.25 seconds to traverse the network. B processes the request instantly, and sends a reply which again takes 0.25 seconds to cross the network back to A. This perfectly symmetric latency should give theta = 5. In this scenario, we have: t_1 = 0 t_2 = 5.25 t_3 = 5.25 t_4 = 0.5 In the calculation as specified, we have theta = (1/2) * [(5.25 - 0) + (5.25 - 0.5)] = 5, as expected With the proposed change we would have theta = (1/2) * [(5.25 -0) + (0.5 - 5.25)] = 0.25, which is incorrect. _______________________________________________ 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 Sat May 20 07:52:53 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 75AD2128D40 for ; Sat, 20 May 2017 07:52:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.589 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com 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 bE-9xzOlo4gK for ; Sat, 20 May 2017 07:52:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 285B21289B0 for ; Sat, 20 May 2017 07:52:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAF8B86DB33 for ; Sat, 20 May 2017 14:52:50 +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 5CBB186DAB8 for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 14:45:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wr0-f178.google.com ([209.85.128.178]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1dBMfj-0005jt-5Q for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Thu, 18 May 2017 14:45:06 +0000 Received: by mail-wr0-f178.google.com with SMTP id w50so36684207wrc.0 for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 07:44:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wMThVsw1e5zPjhwuADabPcm87s4Nxx88On0gXM3Bgmo=; b=M9WB3ywvztj9o3RDipDwR6RxNy90ES3JpUDOwQl76xEp2eV+fXWehqQ6O0DHg2H5sX v+wSpHki70aPcpnWNVBDZkUxsFsOq6971EqdtL5ULpG80thMbfD0U7Wy7sntAxqO1T8J zVOB5gQmSrqmE+irOrIhWclcwIhhrFXeFCbv9ldBl0vlxGYIeDIo4HdRCd3KozAZVqf2 qs/sFHcIPRvYyzLXIdGQiIJa4eZXdkluLgF96PerxTycQuiDxNReV3xshg3RqvhLeuqg y1TCwcZjF5qiM+Hv6Fpt/ORc7XAwLUxu2Kg4nLErCgpPsf17SXr5hT+3oxxWOZsS6qGE bVOQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wMThVsw1e5zPjhwuADabPcm87s4Nxx88On0gXM3Bgmo=; b=tX183w8UNI3Ors16i3EuoORjYYWNO6bG8UCGM9stbgOKPABVsY4FjEiK+TFZ50pnBA kIe2kiIdRRTnthmafs73Neu2kwtYr+bSAunhpS8qvrzLXCwFgKPpSWd9JA8PT/rY/pY5 OKVGfe9rj/urCxQfJV2KIbPFp65oKXlT8RCwZkUerIq2e41hD6LQCq5qhCisr0cZLbfc 1A6rCLoH/kD2Zx3VKYJU/Ep+hoq4dxtj0JT8rmo7y+Kz3H/gapwWXF7dDCAeYJfML5IX qIT7UYINYOOU+8n6h2QJdMofkSZ9kUMfObX7n4qO73PoymV4DhIA8Pa/FbYZdfIxUTXI d4OA== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAyMChTOeUmwBYnlS3C3u4Z4Q57IhZ8sTp3sywzpbp2bGXlZsms zftlC/xc9v37iBftyDDqwoXHVEn/lA== X-Received: by 10.80.143.5 with SMTP id 5mr3518501edy.68.1495118698150; Thu, 18 May 2017 07:44:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.208.135 with HTTP; Thu, 18 May 2017 07:44:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20170515162344.B9782B80C83@rfc-editor.org> References: <20170515162344.B9782B80C83@rfc-editor.org> From: Tal Mizrahi Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 17:44:57 +0300 Message-ID: To: RFC Errata System X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.128.178 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 20 May 2017 14:52:47 +0000 Subject: Re: [ntpwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5905 (5020) 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: william.kasch@jhuapl.edu, jrmii@isc.org, odonoghue@isoc.org, wferi@niif.hu, ntpwg@lists.ntp.org, suresh.krishnan@gmail.com, terry.manderson@icann.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5058769135304084148==" Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" --===============5058769135304084148== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1950cee68237054fcd72f5" --94eb2c1950cee68237054fcd72f5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I do not think this erratum is justified. I believe the error is actually on this line: offset =3D (LFP2D(r->rec - r->org) + LFP2D(r->dst - r->xmt)) / 2; Looks like this was addressed in the following erratum submission: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3D5905&eid=3D3125 Cheers, Tal. On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 7:23 PM, RFC Errata System < rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5905, > "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5020 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Ferenc W=C3=A1gner > > Section: 8 > > Original Text > ------------- > theta =3D T(B) - T(A) =3D 1/2 * [(T2-T1) + (T3-T4)] > > Corrected Text > -------------- > theta =3D T(B) - T(A) =3D 1/2 * [(T2-T1) + (T4-T3)] > > Notes > ----- > The corresponding code line in A.5.1.1. agrees with this correction: > > offset =3D (LFP2D(r->rec - r->org) + LFP2D(r->dst - r->xmt)) / 2; > > taking Figure 7 into account: > > | org | T1 | origin timestamp | > | rec | T2 | receive timestamp | > | xmt | T3 | transmit timestamp | > | dst | T4 | destination timestamp | > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC5905 (draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-proto-13) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and > Algorithms Specification > Publication Date : June 2010 > Author(s) : D. Mills, J. Martin, Ed., J. Burbank, W. Kasch > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Network Time Protocol > Area : Internet > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > _______________________________________________ > ntpwg mailing list > ntpwg@lists.ntp.org > http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg --94eb2c1950cee68237054fcd72f5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

I do not think this erratum is just= ified.

I believe the error is actually on this lin= e:
offset =3D (LFP2D(r->rec -= r->org) + LFP2D(r->dst - r->xmt)) / 2;

Looks like this was addressed in the following erratum submission:<= /span>
<= div>
Cheers,=C2=A0
Tal.


On Mon, = May 15, 2017 at 7:23 PM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.= org> wrote:
The following e= rrata report has been submitted for RFC5905,
"Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specificatio= n".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5020

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Ferenc W=C3=A1gner <wferi@= niif.hu>

Section: 8

Original Text
-------------
theta =3D T(B) - T(A) =3D 1/2 * [(T2-T1) + (T3-T4)]

Corrected Text
--------------
theta =3D T(B) - T(A) =3D 1/2 * [(T2-T1) + (T4-T3)]

Notes
-----
The corresponding code line in A.5.1.1. agrees with this correction:

offset =3D (LFP2D(r->rec - r->org) + LFP2D(r->dst - r->xmt)) / = 2;

taking Figure 7 into account:

| org=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| T1=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| ori= gin timestamp=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 |
| rec=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| T2=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| rec= eive timestamp=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0|
| xmt=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| T3=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| tra= nsmit timestamp=C2=A0 =C2=A0 |
| dst=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| T4=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| des= tination timestamp |

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, ple= ase
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

--------------------------------------
RFC5905 (draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-proto-13)
--------------------------------------
Title=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: Network Time = Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification
Publication Date=C2=A0 =C2=A0 : June 2010
Author(s)=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: D. Mills, J. Martin, Ed= ., J. Burbank, W. Kasch
Category=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : Network Time Proto= col
Area=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : Internet
Stream=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : IETF
Verifying Party=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: IESG
_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg
=
--94eb2c1950cee68237054fcd72f5-- --===============5058769135304084148== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg --===============5058769135304084148==-- From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sat May 20 07:53:45 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 8C3F7127137 for ; Sat, 20 May 2017 07:53:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 QwKws_6DPNxF for ; Sat, 20 May 2017 07:53:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0D7D1293EE for ; Sat, 20 May 2017 07:53:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EADF86DBB6 for ; Sat, 20 May 2017 14:53:43 +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 93D6786DAB8 for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 23:27:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from listserv2.niif.hu ([193.225.14.155]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1dBUp8-000NPD-It for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Thu, 18 May 2017 23:27:23 +0000 Received: from business-188-142-225-206.business.broadband.hu ([188.142.225.206] helo=lant.ki.iif.hu) by listserv2.niif.hu with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1dBUor-0002o9-3j; Fri, 19 May 2017 01:26:57 +0200 Received: from wferi by lant.ki.iif.hu with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dBUol-0007aA-DC; Fri, 19 May 2017 01:26:51 +0200 From: wferi@niif.hu (Ferenc =?utf-8?Q?W=C3=A1gner?=) To: Tal Mizrahi References: <20170515162344.B9782B80C83@rfc-editor.org> Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 01:26:51 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Tal Mizrahi's message of "Thu, 18 May 2017 17:44:57 +0300") Message-ID: <87o9upbvb8.fsf@lant.ki.iif.hu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 193.225.14.155 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: wferi@niif.hu X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 20 May 2017 14:53:40 +0000 Subject: Re: [ntpwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5905 (5020) 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: william.kasch@jhuapl.edu, jrmii@isc.org, odonoghue@isoc.org, terry.manderson@icann.org, ntpwg@lists.ntp.org, wferi@niif.hu, suresh.krishnan@gmail.com, RFC Errata System Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" VGFsIE1penJhaGkgPHRhbC5taXpyYWhpLnBoZEBnbWFpbC5jb20+IHdyaXRlczoKCj4gSSBkbyBu b3QgdGhpbmsgdGhpcyBlcnJhdHVtIGlzIGp1c3RpZmllZC4KPgo+IEkgYmVsaWV2ZSB0aGUgZXJy b3IgaXMgYWN0dWFsbHkgb24gdGhpcyBsaW5lOgo+IG9mZnNldCA9IChMRlAyRChyLT5yZWMgLSBy LT5vcmcpICsgTEZQMkQoci0+ZHN0IC0gci0+eG10KSkgLyAyOwo+Cj4gTG9va3MgbGlrZSB0aGlz IHdhcyBhZGRyZXNzZWQgaW4gdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBlcnJhdHVtIHN1Ym1pc3Npb246Cj4gaHR0 cHM6Ly93d3cucmZjLWVkaXRvci5vcmcvZXJyYXRhX3NlYXJjaC5waHA/cmZjPTU5MDUmZWlkPTMx MjUKCkkgYWdyZWUuICBJIGdvdCBsb3N0IHdpdGggdGhlIG5vdGF0aW9uIGFuZCBtaXNpZGVudGlm aWVkIHRoZSBwcm9ibGVtLgpFcnJhdHVtIDMxMjUgc2VlbXMgdG8gY292ZXIgdGhpcyBpc3N1ZSBm dWxseS4gIEknZCBsaWtlIHRvIHdpdGhkcmF3IG15CmVycmF0dW0gc3VibWlzc2lvbiAoNTAyMCku ICBTb3JyeSBmb3IgdGhlIG5vaXNlLgotLSAKS2luZCByZWdhcmRzLApGZXJlbmMgV8OhZ25lcgpf X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXwpudHB3ZyBtYWls aW5nIGxpc3QKbnRwd2dAbGlzdHMubnRwLm9yZwpodHRwOi8vbGlzdHMubnRwLm9yZy9saXN0aW5m by9udHB3Zw== From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Mon May 22 02:41:47 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 304F3127241 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 02:41:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 xyQjsUvQjV_t for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 02:41:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B413128D44 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 02:41:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CF9186DBCC for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 09:41:43 +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 E5EB686D831 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 09:41:39 +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 1dCjqF-0003wK-Uu for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Mon, 22 May 2017 09:41:39 +0000 Received: from rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 62E1D4EB00 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 11:41:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.5.51]) by rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39CCF4E21B for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 11:41:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 22 May 2017 11:41:29 +0200 Message-Id: <5922B247020000A1000267AC@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 14.2.2 Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 11:41:27 +0200 From: "Ulrich Windl" To: "Tal Mizrahi" , References: <20170515162344.B9782B80C83@rfc-editor.org> <591E9A03020000A10002678A@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> In-Reply-To: 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: Re: Antw: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5905 (5020) 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="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" Pj4+IFRhbCBNaXpyYWhpIDx0YWwubWl6cmFoaS5waGRAZ21haWwuY29tPiBzY2hyaWViIGFtIDE5 LjA1LjIwMTcgdW0gMTU6MDAgaW4KTmFjaHJpY2h0CjxDQUJVRTNYPU5DK3NUWWk5azRIPXlRVDZy bkxaaEFzeWNtRnVQT2NuaHg2Q1BaZ1hIM3dAbWFpbC5nbWFpbC5jb20+Ogo+IEhpIFVscmljaCwK PiAKPj5UaGUgT2Zmc2V0ICh0aGV0YSkgYXMgZGVmaW5lZCBwZXIgUkZDIDU5MDUsIHBhZ2UgMjkg KE9mZnNldCA9ICgoVDIgLSBUMSkgKwo+IChUMwo+Pi0gVDQpKSAvIDIpIHNlZW1zIHRvIGJlIGV4 YWN0bHkgaGFsZiBvZiB0aGUgZGVsYXkgKGRlbHRhKSBpZiB0aGUgY2xvY2tzCj4gYXJlIGluCj4+ cGVyZmVjdCBzeW5jLgo+IAo+IE5vdCBleGFjdGx5Lgo+IAo+IEFjY29yZGluZyB0byBSRkMgNTkw NSwgcGFnZSAyOToKPiBUaGUgb2Zmc2V0IHRoZXRhIGlzIGdpdmVuIGJ5IHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcg dmFsdWU6Cj4gdGhldGE9KChUMi1UMSkrKFQzLVQ0KSkvMgo+IFRoZSBkZWxheSAoYWZ0ZXIgc2xp Z2h0bHkgcmVhcnJhbmdpbmcgdGhlIHRlcm1zKSBpczoKZGVsdGE9KChUMi1UMSkrKFQ0LVQzKSkK ClRoZSBhYm92ZSBpcyB0aGUgcmVqZWN0ZWQgZXJyYXRhIGZvcm11bGEsIHJpZ2h0PwoKPiAKPiBO b3QganVzdCBhIGZhY3RvciBvZiAyLgoKSWYgSSByZWFycmFuZ2UgdGVybXMsIEkgKHdobyBtYXkg YmUgd3JvbmcpIGdldDoKRGVsYXkgPSBUNC1UMyArIChUMi1UMSkgW2Zyb20gKFQ0IC0gVDEpIC0g KFQzIC0gVDIpXQpPZmZzZXQgPSAoVDItVDEgLSAoVDQtVDMpKSAvIDIgW2Zyb20gKChUMiAtIFQx KSArIChUMyAtIFQ0KSkgLyAyXQoKU28gdGhlIG9mZnNldCBpcyBoYWxmIG9mIHRoZSBkaWZmZXJl bmNlIGJldHdlZW4gdHJhbnNtaXQgYW5kIHJlY2VpdmUgZGVsYXk/ClRoZSBhc3N1bXB0aW9uIGlz IHRoYXQgYW55IGFzeW1tZXRyeSBpcyBzb2xlbHkgY2F1c2VkIGJ5IGEgY2xvY2sgb2Zmc2V0IChh bmQKbm90IGJ5IHRoZSBuZXR3b3JrKS4gSSBkb24ndCB1bmRlcnN0YW5kIHdoeSBoYWxmIG9mIHRo ZSB2YWx1ZSBpcyB0YWtlbi4gQ2FuCnNvbWUgb25lIGV4cGxhaW4/CgpSZWdhcmRzLApVbHJpY2gK Cj4gCj4gSW50dWl0aXZlbHksIHdlIGNhbiBvYnNlcnZlIHR3byB0aGluZ3M6Cj4gCj4gLSBXaGVu IHRoZSBvZmZzZXQgaXMgemVybyB3ZSB3aWxsIGhhdmUgdGhldGE9MCBhbmQgIHRodXMgKFQyLVQx KT0oVDQtVDMpLAo+IHdoaWNoIG1lYW5zIG91ciBkZWxheSBtZWFzdXJlbWVudCB3b3VsZCBhcHBl YXIgdG8gYmUgcGVyZmVjdGx5IHN5bW1ldHJpYy4KPiAtIElmIHRoZSBkZWxheSBpcyB6ZXJvIChv ciBkZWxheSA8PCBvZmZzZXQpLCB0aGVuIGl0IGlzIGNsZWFyIHdoeSAoVDItVDEpCj4gaXMgb25l IG1lYXN1cmVtZW50IG9mIHRoZSBvZmZzZXQsIGFuZCAoVDMtVDQpIGlzIGFub3RoZXIgbWVhc3Vy ZW1lbnQgb2YgdGhlCj4gb2Zmc2V0LCBzbyB0aGV0YSBpcyBzaW1wbHkgdGhlIGF2ZXJhZ2UgYmV0 d2VlbiB0aGVzZSB0d28gbWVhc3VyZW1lbnRzLgo+IAo+IE15IHR3byBjZW50cy4uLgo+IFRhbC4K PiAKPiAKPiBPbiBGcmksIE1heSAxOSwgMjAxNyBhdCAxMDowOCBBTSwgVWxyaWNoIFdpbmRsIDwK PiBVbHJpY2guV2luZGxAcnoudW5pLXJlZ2Vuc2J1cmcuZGU+IHdyb3RlOgo+IAo+PiBIaSEKPj4K Pj4gSSBmb3VuZCB0aGF0IEkgaGFkIHNlbnQgdGhpcyBpc3N1ZSB0byBEYXZlIE1pbGxzIGxvbmdl ciB0aW1lIGFnbywgYW5kIGl0Cj4+IHNlZW1zCj4+IHRoZSBidWcgd2FzIGluIFJGQyAxMzA1IChu b3QgMTMwMyBhcyBtaXMtdHlwZWQgaW4gbXkgbWVzc2FnZSkgYXMgd2VsbDoKPj4KPj4gLS0tcXVv dGUgKDIwLjEwLjIwMTUgMTM6MTgpLS0tCj4+IEkgaG9wZSB5b3UnbGwgZXhjdXNlIGEgc3R1cGlk IHF1ZXN0aW9uLCBidXQgaXQgc2VlbXMgIkknbSBzaXR0aW5nIG9uIHRoZQo+PiB3aXJlIjoKPj4g VGhlIE9mZnNldCAodGhldGEpIGFzIGRlZmluZWQgcGVyIFJGQyA1OTA1LCBwYWdlIDI5IChPZmZz ZXQgPSAoKFQyIC0gVDEpICsKPj4gKFQzCj4+IC0gVDQpKSAvIDIpIHNlZW1zIHRvIGJlIGV4YWN0 bHkgaGFsZiBvZiB0aGUgZGVsYXkgKGRlbHRhKSBpZiB0aGUgY2xvY2tzCj4+IGFyZSBpbgo+PiBw ZXJmZWN0IHN5bmMuIEl0IHNlZW1zIEknbSBtaXNzaW5nIHNvbWV0aGluZywgYnV0IEkgY2Fubm90 IHNlZSBpdCEgSSB0cmllZAo+PiB0bwo+PiB2aXN1YWxpemUgdGhlIGNhbGN1bGF0aW9ucyAoc2Vl IGF0dGFjaGVkIGltYWdlKSwgYnV0IHN0aWxsIEkgdGhpbmsKPj4gc29tZXRoaW5nIGlzCj4+IG1p c3NpbmcuIEFzIFJGQyAxMzAzIGhhcyB0aGUgc2FtZSBkZWZpbml0aW9uLCBJIGJlbGlldmUgdG8g YmUgd3JvbmcsIGJ1dAo+PiB3b3VsZAo+PiB5b3UgcGxlYXNlIHRlYWNoIG1lPwo+PiAtLS1lbmQg cXVvdGUtLS0KPj4KPj4gUmVnYXJkcywKPj4gVWxyaWNoCj4+Cj4+ID4+PiBSRkMgRXJyYXRhIFN5 c3RlbSA8cmZjLWVkaXRvckByZmMtZWRpdG9yLm9yZz4gc2NocmllYiBhbSAxNS4wNS4yMDE3IHVt Cj4+IDE4OjIzIGluCj4+IE5hY2hyaWNodCA8MjAxNzA1MTUxNjIzNDQuQjk3ODJCODBDODNAcmZj LWVkaXRvci5vcmc+Ogo+PiA+IFRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgZXJyYXRhIHJlcG9ydCBoYXMgYmVlbiBz dWJtaXR0ZWQgZm9yIFJGQzU5MDUsCj4+ID4gIk5ldHdvcmsgVGltZSBQcm90b2NvbCBWZXJzaW9u IDQ6IFByb3RvY29sIGFuZCBBbGdvcml0aG1zClNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24iLgo+PiA+Cj4+ID4gLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0KPj4gPiBZb3UgbWF5IHJldmlldyB0 aGUgcmVwb3J0IGJlbG93IGFuZCBhdDoKPj4gPiBodHRwOi8vd3d3LnJmYy1lZGl0b3Iub3JnL2Vy cmF0YS9laWQ1MDIwIAo+PiA+Cj4+ID4gLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0KPj4gPiBUeXBlOiBUZWNobmljYWwKPj4gPiBSZXBvcnRlZCBieTogRmVyZW5jIFfDoWdu ZXIgPHdmZXJpQG5paWYuaHU+Cj4+ID4KPj4gPiBTZWN0aW9uOiA4Cj4+ID4KPj4gPiBPcmlnaW5h bCBUZXh0Cj4+ID4gLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQo+PiA+IHRoZXRhID0gVChCKSAtIFQoQSkgPSAxLzIg KiBbKFQyLVQxKSArIChUMy1UNCldCj4+ID4KPj4gPiBDb3JyZWN0ZWQgVGV4dAo+PiA+IC0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tCj4+ID4gdGhldGEgPSBUKEIpIC0gVChBKSA9IDEvMiAqIFsoVDItVDEpICsgKFQ0 LVQzKV0KPj4gPgo+PiA+IE5vdGVzCj4+ID4gLS0tLS0KPj4gPiBUaGUgY29ycmVzcG9uZGluZyBj b2RlIGxpbmUgaW4gQS41LjEuMS4gYWdyZWVzIHdpdGggdGhpcyBjb3JyZWN0aW9uOgo+PiA+Cj4+ ID4gb2Zmc2V0ID0gKExGUDJEKHItPnJlYyAtIHItPm9yZykgKyBMRlAyRChyLT5kc3QgLSByLT54 bXQpKSAvIDI7Cj4+ID4KPj4gPiB0YWtpbmcgRmlndXJlIDcgaW50byBhY2NvdW50Ogo+PiA+Cj4+ ID4gfCBvcmcgICAgICAgfCBUMSAgICAgICAgIHwgb3JpZ2luIHRpbWVzdGFtcCAgICAgIHwKPj4g PiB8IHJlYyAgICAgICB8IFQyICAgICAgICAgfCByZWNlaXZlIHRpbWVzdGFtcCAgICAgfAo+PiA+ IHwgeG10ICAgICAgIHwgVDMgICAgICAgICB8IHRyYW5zbWl0IHRpbWVzdGFtcCAgICB8Cj4+ID4g fCBkc3QgICAgICAgfCBUNCAgICAgICAgIHwgZGVzdGluYXRpb24gdGltZXN0YW1wIHwKPj4gPgo+ PiA+IEluc3RydWN0aW9uczoKPj4gPiAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tCj4+ID4gVGhpcyBlcnJhdHVtIGlz IGN1cnJlbnRseSBwb3N0ZWQgYXMgIlJlcG9ydGVkIi4gSWYgbmVjZXNzYXJ5LCBwbGVhc2UKPj4g PiB1c2UgIlJlcGx5IEFsbCIgdG8gZGlzY3VzcyB3aGV0aGVyIGl0IHNob3VsZCBiZSB2ZXJpZmll ZCBvcgo+PiA+IHJlamVjdGVkLiBXaGVuIGEgZGVjaXNpb24gaXMgcmVhY2hlZCwgdGhlIHZlcmlm eWluZyBwYXJ0eQo+PiA+IGNhbiBsb2cgaW4gdG8gY2hhbmdlIHRoZSBzdGF0dXMgYW5kIGVkaXQg dGhlIHJlcG9ydCwgaWYgbmVjZXNzYXJ5Lgo+PiA+Cj4+ID4gLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0KPj4gPiBSRkM1OTA1IChkcmFmdC1pZXRmLW50cC1udHB2NC1wcm90 by0xMykKPj4gPiAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQo+PiA+IFRp dGxlICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgOiBOZXR3b3JrIFRpbWUgUHJvdG9jb2wgVmVyc2lvbiA0OiBQcm90 b2NvbCBhbmQKPj4gPiBBbGdvcml0aG1zIFNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24KPj4gPiBQdWJsaWNhdGlvbiBE YXRlICAgIDogSnVuZSAyMDEwCj4+ID4gQXV0aG9yKHMpICAgICAgICAgICA6IEQuIE1pbGxzLCBK LiBNYXJ0aW4sIEVkLiwgSi4gQnVyYmFuaywgVy4gS2FzY2gKPj4gPiBDYXRlZ29yeSAgICAgICAg ICAgIDogUFJPUE9TRUQgU1RBTkRBUkQKPj4gPiBTb3VyY2UgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDogTmV0d29y ayBUaW1lIFByb3RvY29sCj4+ID4gQXJlYSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA6IEludGVybmV0Cj4+ID4g U3RyZWFtICAgICAgICAgICAgICA6IElFVEYKPj4gPiBWZXJpZnlpbmcgUGFydHkgICAgIDogSUVT Rwo+PiA+IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fCj4+ ID4gbnRwd2cgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0Cj4+ID4gbnRwd2dAbGlzdHMubnRwLm9yZyAKPj4gPiBodHRw Oi8vbGlzdHMubnRwLm9yZy9saXN0aW5mby9udHB3ZyAKPj4KPj4KPj4KPj4gX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KPj4gbnRwd2cgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0 Cj4+IG50cHdnQGxpc3RzLm50cC5vcmcgCj4+IGh0dHA6Ly9saXN0cy5udHAub3JnL2xpc3RpbmZv L250cHdnIAo+PgoKCgpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fXwpudHB3ZyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QKbnRwd2dAbGlzdHMubnRwLm9yZwpodHRwOi8vbGlzdHMu bnRwLm9yZy9saXN0aW5mby9udHB3Zw== From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Mon May 22 03:24:27 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 94D16129BE6 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 03:24:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.089 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.089 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com 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 tJP3JOqHmIs2 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 03:24:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5B8D129BE0 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 03:24:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C71E486DB21 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 10:24:23 +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 E68E286D831 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 10:24:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wm0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1dCkVZ-000AUS-Ll for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Mon, 22 May 2017 10:24:20 +0000 Received: by mail-wm0-f44.google.com with SMTP id e127so33132269wmg.1 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 03:24:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=n3Q23LriPl8OjzY9YO53GDHmsw6JZwXcKme9eIQhzNM=; b=GtmCt4Gi8iv+wCWKPDe86r0p20D2oyMfjJklqw7b/vvBjhoDXvGMI9TZMXbSwoWpRH 2mXkYh0pWubcPW9UZsnaqxOpbDY451wQI00TnEFoWl9GHh3XNMXikaZY4Z0Zeow0rtyD OZ17GdjS3LO756qyUnWDP0KJYqnu9tct4clvYviq7dgwqRZ3YA92s+9VMxHoZgOlMOdP pZwmz9wfIoQqIvJNne4kW3n/0/NfGGJ5yvyN20UHTx3aAFtrQecM0W/ucjek/p/i3SmV FJE3MSE/ugqE2MNbVHYQjgbi4g6Ah+4T/JPvnNUU0ew8tqLdKBASiicJtFOoMMCjYFNv U+hQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=n3Q23LriPl8OjzY9YO53GDHmsw6JZwXcKme9eIQhzNM=; b=HCW4uoTxhbgM8slEnb/G0nlKykuHdaN6/VBMrzZC3r4bH631E9ABQ+tM2trzf/Fa5w n7K6d5AgHgOZf95rr6E5GifrHLH1PSXRwdGEVMKHnY7/SOdTFRldByAKrI1kVdrYq/v4 YJQeKkxlmoECVs5iQA9dAA2E4bQuLA52lWR5vmRBJDBHCKPi/KGsQQnlytv9df5nC8hq pUSwxRAch1aY+vRCp9YBbvJT/EmpC5XwLPkYbXnJ2JaLBv2KPLJOvg4CF5KdbW6hG4X3 voyzw8nBlblXsoG6wmUPNHSNX9bGDZbJpK0TZPhknxy0o4RrXlufdtEsYH5Jr1ubri+y 3TDw== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcBuBjNQYsWHPRSfV9q6Vpu/eMfdYPxU1zuysYfRXbQc/Dt7P/kS aGQnxnWd2l3CMf7jDbTuFaIwftIuvA== X-Received: by 10.80.152.112 with SMTP id h45mr7746431edb.103.1495448652802; Mon, 22 May 2017 03:24:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.208.135 with HTTP; Mon, 22 May 2017 03:24:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5922B247020000A1000267AC@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> References: <20170515162344.B9782B80C83@rfc-editor.org> <591E9A03020000A10002678A@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> <5922B247020000A1000267AC@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> From: Tal Mizrahi Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 13:24:12 +0300 Message-ID: To: Ulrich Windl X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 74.125.82.44 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Antw: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5905 (5020) 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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6096579617373990940==" Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" --===============6096579617373990940== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c195a3cbaed8905501a45ef" --94eb2c195a3cbaed8905501a45ef Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ulrich, >So the offset is half of the difference between transmit and receive delay= ? >The assumption is that any asymmetry is solely caused by a clock offset (and >not by the network). I don't understand why half of the value is taken. Ca= n >some one explain? First, this is further discussed in Dave Mill's NTP paper (see below [1]). Basically, the *estimated* offset is indeed half the difference between the *measured* one-way-delays. In the paper there is also a discussion about an upper bound and a lower bound of the *true* offset. As always, there is an underlying assumption that the delay is symmetric (because NTP has no way of measuring any asymmetries). The offset is denoted by theta, and the one-way-delay by delta. By definition of delta and theta, we expect that (T2-T1)=3Ddelta+theta Similarly, we also expect that (T4-T3)=3Ddelta-theta So we have two equations with two unknowns (delta, and theta). Based on these two equations we can isolate delta and theta, and get the two equations given in RFC 5905, page 29: theta =3D 1/2 * [(T2-T1) + (T3-T4)] delta =3D (T4-T1) - (T3-T2) Tal. [1] Mills, David L. "Internet time synchronization: the network time protocol." IEEE Transactions on communications 39.10 (1991): 1482-1493. On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Ulrich Windl < Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote: > >>> Tal Mizrahi schrieb am 19.05.2017 um > 15:00 in > Nachricht > : > > Hi Ulrich, > > > >>The Offset (theta) as defined per RFC 5905, page 29 (Offset =3D ((T2 - = T1) > + > > (T3 > >>- T4)) / 2) seems to be exactly half of the delay (delta) if the clocks > > are in > >>perfect sync. > > > > Not exactly. > > > > According to RFC 5905, page 29: > > The offset theta is given by the following value: > > theta=3D((T2-T1)+(T3-T4))/2 > > The delay (after slightly rearranging the terms) is: > delta=3D((T2-T1)+(T4-T3)) > > The above is the rejected errata formula, right? > > > > > Not just a factor of 2. > > If I rearrange terms, I (who may be wrong) get: > Delay =3D T4-T3 + (T2-T1) [from (T4 - T1) - (T3 - T2)] > Offset =3D (T2-T1 - (T4-T3)) / 2 [from ((T2 - T1) + (T3 - T4)) / 2] > > So the offset is half of the difference between transmit and receive dela= y? > The assumption is that any asymmetry is solely caused by a clock offset > (and > not by the network). I don't understand why half of the value is taken. C= an > some one explain? > > Regards, > Ulrich > > > > > Intuitively, we can observe two things: > > > > - When the offset is zero we will have theta=3D0 and thus (T2-T1)=3D(T= 4-T3), > > which means our delay measurement would appear to be perfectly symmetri= c. > > - If the delay is zero (or delay << offset), then it is clear why (T2-T= 1) > > is one measurement of the offset, and (T3-T4) is another measurement of > the > > offset, so theta is simply the average between these two measurements. > > > > My two cents... > > Tal. > > > > > > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Ulrich Windl < > > Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote: > > > >> Hi! > >> > >> I found that I had sent this issue to Dave Mills longer time ago, and = it > >> seems > >> the bug was in RFC 1305 (not 1303 as mis-typed in my message) as well: > >> > >> ---quote (20.10.2015 13:18)--- > >> I hope you'll excuse a stupid question, but it seems "I'm sitting on t= he > >> wire": > >> The Offset (theta) as defined per RFC 5905, page 29 (Offset =3D ((T2 - > T1) + > >> (T3 > >> - T4)) / 2) seems to be exactly half of the delay (delta) if the clock= s > >> are in > >> perfect sync. It seems I'm missing something, but I cannot see it! I > tried > >> to > >> visualize the calculations (see attached image), but still I think > >> something is > >> missing. As RFC 1303 has the same definition, I believe to be wrong, b= ut > >> would > >> you please teach me? > >> ---end quote--- > >> > >> Regards, > >> Ulrich > >> > >> >>> RFC Errata System schrieb am > 15.05.2017 um > >> 18:23 in > >> Nachricht <20170515162344.B9782B80C83@rfc-editor.org>: > >> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5905, > >> > "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms > Specification". > >> > > >> > -------------------------------------- > >> > You may review the report below and at: > >> > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5020 > >> > > >> > -------------------------------------- > >> > Type: Technical > >> > Reported by: Ferenc W=C3=A1gner > >> > > >> > Section: 8 > >> > > >> > Original Text > >> > ------------- > >> > theta =3D T(B) - T(A) =3D 1/2 * [(T2-T1) + (T3-T4)] > >> > > >> > Corrected Text > >> > -------------- > >> > theta =3D T(B) - T(A) =3D 1/2 * [(T2-T1) + (T4-T3)] > >> > > >> > Notes > >> > ----- > >> > The corresponding code line in A.5.1.1. agrees with this correction: > >> > > >> > offset =3D (LFP2D(r->rec - r->org) + LFP2D(r->dst - r->xmt)) / 2; > >> > > >> > taking Figure 7 into account: > >> > > >> > | org | T1 | origin timestamp | > >> > | rec | T2 | receive timestamp | > >> > | xmt | T3 | transmit timestamp | > >> > | dst | T4 | destination timestamp | > >> > > >> > Instructions: > >> > ------------- > >> > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > >> > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > >> > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > >> > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > >> > > >> > -------------------------------------- > >> > RFC5905 (draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-proto-13) > >> > -------------------------------------- > >> > Title : Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and > >> > Algorithms Specification > >> > Publication Date : June 2010 > >> > Author(s) : D. Mills, J. Martin, Ed., J. Burbank, W. Kasch > >> > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > >> > Source : Network Time Protocol > >> > Area : Internet > >> > Stream : IETF > >> > Verifying Party : IESG > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > 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 > >> > > > > --94eb2c195a3cbaed8905501a45ef Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ulrich,

>So the offset is= half of the difference between transmit and receive delay?
>T= he assumption is that any asymmetry is solely caused by a clock offset (and=
>not by the network). I don't understand why half of = the value is taken. Can
>some one explain?

First, this is further discussed in Dave Mill's NTP paper (see below= [1]).
Basically, the *estimated* offset is indeed half the diffe= rence between the *measured* one-way-delays. In the paper there is also a d= iscussion about an upper bound and a lower bound of the *true* offset.
As always, there is an underlying assumption that the delay is symmet= ric (because NTP has no way of measuring any asymmetries).

The offset is denoted by theta, and the one-way-delay by delta.

By definition of delta and theta, we expect that=C2= =A0
(T2-T1)=3Ddelta+theta
Similarly, we also expect tha= t=C2=A0
(T4-T3)=3Ddelta-theta

So we have= two equations with two unknowns (delta, and theta). Based on these two equ= ations we can isolate delta and theta, and get the two equations given in R= FC 5905, page 29:

theta =3D=C2=A01/2 * [(T2-T1) + = (T3-T4)]
delta =3D=C2=A0(T4-T1) - (T3-T2)

Tal.


[1] Mills, David L. &quo= t;Internet time synchronization: the network time protocol." IEEE Tran= sactions on communications 39.10 (1991): 1482-1493.



On Mon, May = 22, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-re= gensburg.de> wrote:
>>> Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> schrieb am 19.05.2017 um 15:00= in
Nachricht
<CABUE3X=3DNC+sTYi9k4H=3DyQT6rnLZhAsycmFuPOcnhx6CPZgXH3w@mail.gmail.com= >:
> Hi Ulrich,
>
>>The Offset (theta) as defined per RFC 5905, page 29 (Offset =3D ((T= 2 - T1) +
> (T3
>>- T4)) / 2) seems to be exactly half of the delay (delta) if the cl= ocks
> are in
>>perfect sync.
>
> Not exactly.
>
> According to RFC 5905, page 29:
> The offset theta is given by the following value:
> theta=3D((T2-T1)+(T3-T4))/2
> The delay (after slightly rearranging the terms) is:
delta=3D((T2-T1)+(T4-T3))

The above is the rejected errata formula, right?

>
> Not just a factor of 2.

If I rearrange terms, I (who may be wrong) get:
Delay =3D T4-T3 + (T2-T1) [from (T4 - T1) - (T3 - T2)]
Offset =3D (T2-T1 - (T4-T3)) / 2 [from ((T2 - T1) + (T3 - T4)) / 2]

So the offset is half of the difference between transmit and receive delay?=
The assumption is that any asymmetry is solely caused by a clock offset (an= d
not by the network). I don't understand why half of the value is taken.= Can
some one explain?

Regards,
Ulrich

>
> Intuitively, we can observe two things:
>
> - When the offset is zero we will have theta=3D0 and=C2=A0 thus (T2-T1= )=3D(T4-T3),
> which means our delay measurement would appear to be perfectly symmetr= ic.
> - If the delay is zero (or delay << offset), then it is clear wh= y (T2-T1)
> is one measurement of the offset, and (T3-T4) is another measurement o= f the
> offset, so theta is simply the average between these two measurements.=
>
> My two cents...
> Tal.
>
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Ulrich Windl <
> Ulrich.Windl@rz.u= ni-regensburg.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I found that I had sent this issue to Dave Mills longer time ago, = and it
>> seems
>> the bug was in RFC 1305 (not 1303 as mis-typed in my message) as w= ell:
>>
>> ---quote (20.10.2015 13:18)---
>> I hope you'll excuse a stupid question, but it seems "I&#= 39;m sitting on the
>> wire":
>> The Offset (theta) as defined per RFC 5905, page 29 (Offset =3D ((= T2 - T1) +
>> (T3
>> - T4)) / 2) seems to be exactly half of the delay (delta) if the c= locks
>> are in
>> perfect sync. It seems I'm missing something, but I cannot see= it! I tried
>> to
>> visualize the calculations (see attached image), but still I think=
>> something is
>> missing. As RFC 1303 has the same definition, I believe to be wron= g, but
>> would
>> you please teach me?
>> ---end quote---
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ulrich
>>
>> >>> RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> schrieb am 15.05.2017 um >> 18:23 in
>> Nachricht <20170515162344.B9782B80C83@rfc-editor.org>:
>> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5905, >> > "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithm= s
Specification".
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------
>> > You may review the report below and at:
>> > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5020<= /a>
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------
>> > Type: Technical
>> > Reported by: Ferenc W=C3=A1gner <wferi@niif.hu>
>> >
>> > Section: 8
>> >
>> > Original Text
>> > -------------
>> > theta =3D T(B) - T(A) =3D 1/2 * [(T2-T1) + (T3-T4)]
>> >
>> > Corrected Text
>> > --------------
>> > theta =3D T(B) - T(A) =3D 1/2 * [(T2-T1) + (T4-T3)]
>> >
>> > Notes
>> > -----
>> > The corresponding code line in A.5.1.1. agrees with this corr= ection:
>> >
>> > offset =3D (LFP2D(r->rec - r->org) + LFP2D(r->dst - = r->xmt)) / 2;
>> >
>> > taking Figure 7 into account:
>> >
>> > | org=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| T1=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0| origin timestamp=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 |
>> > | rec=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| T2=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0| receive timestamp=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0|
>> > | xmt=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| T3=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0| transmit timestamp=C2=A0 =C2=A0 |
>> > | dst=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| T4=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0| destination timestamp |
>> >
>> > Instructions:
>> > -------------
>> > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If = necessary, please
>> > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be ver= ified or
>> > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
>> > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if neces= sary.
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------
>> > RFC5905 (draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-proto-13)
>> > --------------------------------------
>> > Title=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0:= Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and
>> > Algorithms Specification
>> > Publication Date=C2=A0 =C2=A0 : June 2010
>> > Author(s)=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: D. Mills,= J. Martin, Ed., J. Burbank, W. Kasch
>> > Category=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : PROPOSED = STANDARD
>> > Source=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : Netw= ork Time Protocol
>> > Area=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 := Internet
>> > Stream=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : IETF=
>> > Verifying Party=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: IESG
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>




--94eb2c195a3cbaed8905501a45ef-- --===============6096579617373990940== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg --===============6096579617373990940==-- From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Mon May 22 03:29:40 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 67F83129BDA for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 03:29:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.589 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com 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 Tw-EdqNWo6Bq for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 03:29:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4744A129BDB for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 03:29:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B231286DBCF for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 10:29:37 +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 580DC86D831 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 10:29:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lf0-f41.google.com ([209.85.215.41]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1dCkad-000AhK-38 for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Mon, 22 May 2017 10:29:34 +0000 Received: by mail-lf0-f41.google.com with SMTP id h4so28567514lfj.3 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 03:29:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=iOKrAqJ48MtrSu23enseBpNeNBst6VeGQmc8gDyAQdI=; b=YSWRvPJJzEQJelVKep5Y4edLukU0YX9FtcxGQfoPtYkEwak1vZAN/MJtjsAj5s634h XdrFGatmZpifjUJyXyOFa8fLypqKDRqKBnJWjBurDVQMmYDlyWLFbmwp6JCAL1R17jCw U6cwFF7z5ByydqK8VjQDu7L29+hFh6YdY+LVR7wP/pm+EASx2o9dsTmoHzqs+ZSK1bw5 C27sh3lrFU8kaZUIwVAuQ/a42TT4ugSrnf747M9HmAOeviC5UCaRN0htSfmw5XoFlwV0 wsqQ+VIggHbXPw01cKoKU8AW1bB1WljLK5MSQQBU9JA66RS5v5ejoAVSDgSoi6/sQRXR kjBw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=iOKrAqJ48MtrSu23enseBpNeNBst6VeGQmc8gDyAQdI=; b=ZqQ4iemJHts6W4nLWyJvI2/XR15SsUvxt+DimeRX5HHAu0IjZp9OBuMrjeI0qt5DGZ HttaPa0UThpm+jiZunWd31tqCq1C4VXsbyb3rg82t189IfXTve0Hn974Gqs8WsUj8wNF ZI/H+DiN4R3rdwEVFvC12e+xPD3FQB+yshn5kJSMQnwI8/9IslN3wiYE73H6hSOC/lW5 ssPkwiQyPIVa+Chv8k1JGsUcf4+9hoPcyjHjnaj4ZARSwj1md7sMxrkl4yKsliJ21Y51 VW7Qm19C3qdS5IX/lENx1nY1OogAf3wnsA3HjOVkaSU4kGsEHf0MB0/oSD+mhQYqAuzX d70w== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDkxvAHolEwaEt3om456C2T6hUxvTVEJREngxOYpFhSQ5dTR4DQ Spcatn07BXsQWW9uBfIV4mxFKwQDj2owFOI= X-Received: by 10.80.136.229 with SMTP id d92mr17440415edd.119.1495448965835; Mon, 22 May 2017 03:29:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.208.135 with HTTP; Mon, 22 May 2017 03:29:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20170515162344.B9782B80C83@rfc-editor.org> <591E9A03020000A10002678A@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> <5922B247020000A1000267AC@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> From: Tal Mizrahi Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 13:29:25 +0300 Message-ID: To: Ulrich Windl X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.215.41 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Antw: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5905 (5020) 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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5948801199638359294==" Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" --===============5948801199638359294== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c19628463711a05501a58a1" --94eb2c19628463711a05501a58a1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Correction: delta is the two-way-delay, and not as written below. Thus, the one-way-delay is delta/2. So the two equations with two unknowns are actually: (T2-T1) =3D delta/2 + theta (T4-T3) =3D delta/2 - theta and from here we get: theta =3D 1/2 * [(T2-T1) + (T3-T4)] delta =3D (T4-T1) - (T3-T2) Cheers, Tal. On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Tal Mizrahi wrote: > Ulrich, > > >So the offset is half of the difference between transmit and receive > delay? > >The assumption is that any asymmetry is solely caused by a clock offset > (and > >not by the network). I don't understand why half of the value is taken. > Can > >some one explain? > > First, this is further discussed in Dave Mill's NTP paper (see below [1])= . > Basically, the *estimated* offset is indeed half the difference between > the *measured* one-way-delays. In the paper there is also a discussion > about an upper bound and a lower bound of the *true* offset. > As always, there is an underlying assumption that the delay is symmetric > (because NTP has no way of measuring any asymmetries). > > The offset is denoted by theta, and the one-way-delay by delta. > > By definition of delta and theta, we expect that > (T2-T1)=3Ddelta+theta > Similarly, we also expect that > (T4-T3)=3Ddelta-theta > > So we have two equations with two unknowns (delta, and theta). Based on > these two equations we can isolate delta and theta, and get the two > equations given in RFC 5905, page 29: > > theta =3D 1/2 * [(T2-T1) + (T3-T4)] > delta =3D (T4-T1) - (T3-T2) > > Tal. > > > [1] Mills, David L. "Internet time synchronization: the network time > protocol." IEEE Transactions on communications 39.10 (1991): 1482-1493. > > > > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Ulrich Windl regensburg.de> wrote: > >> >>> Tal Mizrahi schrieb am 19.05.2017 um >> 15:00 in >> Nachricht >> = : >> > Hi Ulrich, >> > >> >>The Offset (theta) as defined per RFC 5905, page 29 (Offset =3D ((T2 - >> T1) + >> > (T3 >> >>- T4)) / 2) seems to be exactly half of the delay (delta) if the clock= s >> > are in >> >>perfect sync. >> > >> > Not exactly. >> > >> > According to RFC 5905, page 29: >> > The offset theta is given by the following value: >> > theta=3D((T2-T1)+(T3-T4))/2 >> > The delay (after slightly rearranging the terms) is: >> delta=3D((T2-T1)+(T4-T3)) >> >> The above is the rejected errata formula, right? >> >> > >> > Not just a factor of 2. >> >> If I rearrange terms, I (who may be wrong) get: >> Delay =3D T4-T3 + (T2-T1) [from (T4 - T1) - (T3 - T2)] >> Offset =3D (T2-T1 - (T4-T3)) / 2 [from ((T2 - T1) + (T3 - T4)) / 2] >> >> So the offset is half of the difference between transmit and receive >> delay? >> The assumption is that any asymmetry is solely caused by a clock offset >> (and >> not by the network). I don't understand why half of the value is taken. >> Can >> some one explain? >> >> Regards, >> Ulrich >> >> > >> > Intuitively, we can observe two things: >> > >> > - When the offset is zero we will have theta=3D0 and thus >> (T2-T1)=3D(T4-T3), >> > which means our delay measurement would appear to be perfectly >> symmetric. >> > - If the delay is zero (or delay << offset), then it is clear why >> (T2-T1) >> > is one measurement of the offset, and (T3-T4) is another measurement o= f >> the >> > offset, so theta is simply the average between these two measurements. >> > >> > My two cents... >> > Tal. >> > >> > >> > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Ulrich Windl < >> > Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote: >> > >> >> Hi! >> >> >> >> I found that I had sent this issue to Dave Mills longer time ago, and >> it >> >> seems >> >> the bug was in RFC 1305 (not 1303 as mis-typed in my message) as well= : >> >> >> >> ---quote (20.10.2015 13:18)--- >> >> I hope you'll excuse a stupid question, but it seems "I'm sitting on >> the >> >> wire": >> >> The Offset (theta) as defined per RFC 5905, page 29 (Offset =3D ((T2 = - >> T1) + >> >> (T3 >> >> - T4)) / 2) seems to be exactly half of the delay (delta) if the cloc= ks >> >> are in >> >> perfect sync. It seems I'm missing something, but I cannot see it! I >> tried >> >> to >> >> visualize the calculations (see attached image), but still I think >> >> something is >> >> missing. As RFC 1303 has the same definition, I believe to be wrong, >> but >> >> would >> >> you please teach me? >> >> ---end quote--- >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Ulrich >> >> >> >> >>> RFC Errata System schrieb am >> 15.05.2017 um >> >> 18:23 in >> >> Nachricht <20170515162344.B9782B80C83@rfc-editor.org>: >> >> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5905, >> >> > "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms >> Specification". >> >> > >> >> > -------------------------------------- >> >> > You may review the report below and at: >> >> > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5020 >> >> > >> >> > -------------------------------------- >> >> > Type: Technical >> >> > Reported by: Ferenc W=C3=A1gner >> >> > >> >> > Section: 8 >> >> > >> >> > Original Text >> >> > ------------- >> >> > theta =3D T(B) - T(A) =3D 1/2 * [(T2-T1) + (T3-T4)] >> >> > >> >> > Corrected Text >> >> > -------------- >> >> > theta =3D T(B) - T(A) =3D 1/2 * [(T2-T1) + (T4-T3)] >> >> > >> >> > Notes >> >> > ----- >> >> > The corresponding code line in A.5.1.1. agrees with this correction= : >> >> > >> >> > offset =3D (LFP2D(r->rec - r->org) + LFP2D(r->dst - r->xmt)) / 2; >> >> > >> >> > taking Figure 7 into account: >> >> > >> >> > | org | T1 | origin timestamp | >> >> > | rec | T2 | receive timestamp | >> >> > | xmt | T3 | transmit timestamp | >> >> > | dst | T4 | destination timestamp | >> >> > >> >> > Instructions: >> >> > ------------- >> >> > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, pleas= e >> >> > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or >> >> > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party >> >> > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. >> >> > >> >> > -------------------------------------- >> >> > RFC5905 (draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-proto-13) >> >> > -------------------------------------- >> >> > Title : Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and >> >> > Algorithms Specification >> >> > Publication Date : June 2010 >> >> > Author(s) : D. Mills, J. Martin, Ed., J. Burbank, W. Kasc= h >> >> > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD >> >> > Source : Network Time Protocol >> >> > Area : Internet >> >> > Stream : IETF >> >> > Verifying Party : IESG >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> > --94eb2c19628463711a05501a58a1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Correction: delta is the two-way-delay, and not as written= below. Thus, the one-way-delay is delta/2.
So the two equations with t= wo unknowns are actually:

(T2-T1) =3D delta/2 + th= eta
(T4-T3) =3D delta/2 - theta

= and from here we get:

theta =3D 1/2 * [(T2-T1= ) + (T3-T4)]
delta =3D (T4-T1) - (T3-T2)

Cheers,
Tal.


On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Tal= Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> wrote:
Ulrich,

>So the offset is half of the difference between = transmit and receive delay?
>The assumption is that any asymme= try is solely caused by a clock offset (and
>not by the ne= twork). I don't understand why half of the value is taken. Can
>s= ome one explain?

First, this is further= discussed in Dave Mill's NTP paper (see below [1]).
Basicall= y, the *estimated* offset is indeed half the difference between the *measur= ed* one-way-delays. In the paper there is also a discussion about an upper = bound and a lower bound of the *true* offset.
As always, there is= an underlying assumption that the delay is symmetric (because NTP has no w= ay of measuring any asymmetries).

The offset is de= noted by theta, and the one-way-delay by delta.

By= definition of delta and theta, we expect that=C2=A0
(T2-T1)=3Dde= lta+theta
Similarly, we also expect that=C2=A0
(T4-T3)= =3Ddelta-theta

So we have two equations with two u= nknowns (delta, and theta). Based on these two equations we can isolate del= ta and theta, and get the two equations given in RFC 5905, page 29:

theta =3D=C2=A01/2 * [(T2-T1) + (T3-T4)]
de= lta =3D=C2=A0(T4-T1) - (T3-T2)

Tal.

=

[1] Mills, David L. "Internet time synchroni= zation: the network time protocol." IEEE Transactions on communication= s 39.10 (1991): 1482-1493.

<= br>

On Mon, May 22= , 2017 at 12:41 PM, Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
>>> Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> schrieb a= m 19.05.2017 um 15:00 in
Nachricht
<CABUE3X=3DNC+sTYi9k4H=3DyQT6rnLZhAsycmFuPOcnhx6CPZgXH3w@m= ail.gmail.com>:
> Hi Ulrich,
>
>>The Offset (theta) as defined per RFC 5905, page 29 (Offset =3D ((T= 2 - T1) +
> (T3
>>- T4)) / 2) seems to be exactly half of the delay (delta) if the cl= ocks
> are in
>>perfect sync.
>
> Not exactly.
>
> According to RFC 5905, page 29:
> The offset theta is given by the following value:
> theta=3D((T2-T1)+(T3-T4))/2
> The delay (after slightly rearranging the terms) is:
delta=3D((T2-T1)+(T4-T3))

The above is the rejected errata formula, right?

>
> Not just a factor of 2.

If I rearrange terms, I (who may be wrong) get:
Delay =3D T4-T3 + (T2-T1) [from (T4 - T1) - (T3 - T2)]
Offset =3D (T2-T1 - (T4-T3)) / 2 [from ((T2 - T1) + (T3 - T4)) / 2]

So the offset is half of the difference between transmit and receive delay?=
The assumption is that any asymmetry is solely caused by a clock offset (an= d
not by the network). I don't understand why half of the value is taken.= Can
some one explain?

Regards,
Ulrich

>
> Intuitively, we can observe two things:
>
> - When the offset is zero we will have theta=3D0 and=C2=A0 thus (T2-T1= )=3D(T4-T3),
> which means our delay measurement would appear to be perfectly symmetr= ic.
> - If the delay is zero (or delay << offset), then it is clear wh= y (T2-T1)
> is one measurement of the offset, and (T3-T4) is another measurement o= f the
> offset, so theta is simply the average between these two measurements.=
>
> My two cents...
> Tal.
>
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Ulrich Windl <
> Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I found that I had sent this issue to Dave Mills longer time ago, = and it
>> seems
>> the bug was in RFC 1305 (not 1303 as mis-typed in my message) as w= ell:
>>
>> ---quote (20.10.2015 13:18)---
>> I hope you'll excuse a stupid question, but it seems "I&#= 39;m sitting on the
>> wire":
>> The Offset (theta) as defined per RFC 5905, page 29 (Offset =3D ((= T2 - T1) +
>> (T3
>> - T4)) / 2) seems to be exactly half of the delay (delta) if the c= locks
>> are in
>> perfect sync. It seems I'm missing something, but I cannot see= it! I tried
>> to
>> visualize the calculations (see attached image), but still I think=
>> something is
>> missing. As RFC 1303 has the same definition, I believe to be wron= g, but
>> would
>> you please teach me?
>> ---end quote---
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ulrich
>>
>> >>> RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> schrieb a= m 15.05.2017 um
>> 18:23 in
>> Nachricht <20170515162344.B9782B80C83@rfc-editor.org>:
>> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5905, >> > "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithm= s
Specification".
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------
>> > You may review the report below and at:
>> > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5020<= /a>
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------
>> > Type: Technical
>> > Reported by: Ferenc W=C3=A1gner <wferi@niif.hu>
>> >
>> > Section: 8
>> >
>> > Original Text
>> > -------------
>> > theta =3D T(B) - T(A) =3D 1/2 * [(T2-T1) + (T3-T4)]
>> >
>> > Corrected Text
>> > --------------
>> > theta =3D T(B) - T(A) =3D 1/2 * [(T2-T1) + (T4-T3)]
>> >
>> > Notes
>> > -----
>> > The corresponding code line in A.5.1.1. agrees with this corr= ection:
>> >
>> > offset =3D (LFP2D(r->rec - r->org) + LFP2D(r->dst - = r->xmt)) / 2;
>> >
>> > taking Figure 7 into account:
>> >
>> > | org=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| T1=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0| origin timestamp=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 |
>> > | rec=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| T2=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0| receive timestamp=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0|
>> > | xmt=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| T3=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0| transmit timestamp=C2=A0 =C2=A0 |
>> > | dst=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| T4=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0| destination timestamp |
>> >
>> > Instructions:
>> > -------------
>> > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If = necessary, please
>> > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be ver= ified or
>> > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
>> > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if neces= sary.
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------
>> > RFC5905 (draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-proto-13)
>> > --------------------------------------
>> > Title=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0:= Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and
>> > Algorithms Specification
>> > Publication Date=C2=A0 =C2=A0 : June 2010
>> > Author(s)=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: D. Mills,= J. Martin, Ed., J. Burbank, W. Kasch
>> > Category=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : PROPOSED = STANDARD
>> > Source=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : Netw= ork Time Protocol
>> > Area=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 := Internet
>> > Stream=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : IETF=
>> > Verifying Party=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: IESG
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ntpwg mailing list
>> > ntpw= g@lists.ntp.org
>> > http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ntpwg mailing list
>> ntpwg@lis= ts.ntp.org
>> http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg
>>





--94eb2c19628463711a05501a58a1-- --===============5948801199638359294== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg --===============5948801199638359294==-- From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Mon May 22 03:30:02 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 B324A129BDB for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 03:30:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 AxCLYjC1YRYe for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 03:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6FB6129BDA for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 03:30:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E12D86DB9A for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 10:30:00 +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 34C5B86DAE8 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 10:29:57 +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 1dCkax-000AkA-2I for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Mon, 22 May 2017 10:29:57 +0000 Received: from rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 7C1DC4EB00 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 12:29:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.5.51]) by rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A6B64E21B for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 12:29:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 22 May 2017 12:29:45 +0200 Message-Id: <5922BD97020000A1000267B7@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 14.2.2 Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 12:29:43 +0200 From: "Ulrich Windl" To: "Tal Mizrahi" References: <20170515162344.B9782B80C83@rfc-editor.org> <591E9A03020000A10002678A@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> <5922B247020000A1000267AC@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> In-Reply-To: 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: Re: Re: Antw: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5905 (5020) 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="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" Pj4+IFRhbCBNaXpyYWhpIDx0YWwubWl6cmFoaS5waGRAZ21haWwuY29tPiBzY2hyaWViIGFtIDIy LjA1LjIwMTcgdW0gMTI6MjQgaW4KTmFjaHJpY2h0CjxDQUJVRTNYa1FRU29xWEtNellQQURWekx0 NlIxRUxjTWg5cG9KVlQyT1NDR2RhQXZCMlFAbWFpbC5nbWFpbC5jb20+Ogo+IFVscmljaCwKPiAK Pj5TbyB0aGUgb2Zmc2V0IGlzIGhhbGYgb2YgdGhlIGRpZmZlcmVuY2UgYmV0d2VlbiB0cmFuc21p dCBhbmQgcmVjZWl2ZSBkZWxheT8KPj5UaGUgYXNzdW1wdGlvbiBpcyB0aGF0IGFueSBhc3ltbWV0 cnkgaXMgc29sZWx5IGNhdXNlZCBieSBhIGNsb2NrIG9mZnNldAo+IChhbmQKPj5ub3QgYnkgdGhl IG5ldHdvcmspLiBJIGRvbid0IHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgd2h5IGhhbGYgb2YgdGhlIHZhbHVlIGlzIHRh a2VuLiBDYW4KPj5zb21lIG9uZSBleHBsYWluPwoKVGhhbmtzIQoKU29vbiBhZnRlciBoYXZpbmcg c2VudCBteSBtZXNzYWdlLCBteSBicmFpbiBnb3QgYSBsaXR0bGUgYnJlYWssIGFuZCBpbnN0YW50 bHkKdGhlIGxpZ2h0IHdlbnQgb24sIGFuZCBJIHJlYWxpemVkIHdoYXQgSSBoYWQgbWlzc2VkIGJl Zm9yZSA7LSkKClVscmljaAoKPiAKPiBGaXJzdCwgdGhpcyBpcyBmdXJ0aGVyIGRpc2N1c3NlZCBp biBEYXZlIE1pbGwncyBOVFAgcGFwZXIgKHNlZSBiZWxvdyBbMV0pLgo+IEJhc2ljYWxseSwgdGhl ICplc3RpbWF0ZWQqIG9mZnNldCBpcyBpbmRlZWQgaGFsZiB0aGUgZGlmZmVyZW5jZSBiZXR3ZWVu IHRoZQo+ICptZWFzdXJlZCogb25lLXdheS1kZWxheXMuIEluIHRoZSBwYXBlciB0aGVyZSBpcyBh bHNvIGEgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBhYm91dCBhbgo+IHVwcGVyIGJvdW5kIGFuZCBhIGxvd2VyIGJvdW5k IG9mIHRoZSAqdHJ1ZSogb2Zmc2V0Lgo+IEFzIGFsd2F5cywgdGhlcmUgaXMgYW4gdW5kZXJseWlu ZyBhc3N1bXB0aW9uIHRoYXQgdGhlIGRlbGF5IGlzIHN5bW1ldHJpYwo+IChiZWNhdXNlIE5UUCBo YXMgbm8gd2F5IG9mIG1lYXN1cmluZyBhbnkgYXN5bW1ldHJpZXMpLgo+IAo+IFRoZSBvZmZzZXQg aXMgZGVub3RlZCBieSB0aGV0YSwgYW5kIHRoZSBvbmUtd2F5LWRlbGF5IGJ5IGRlbHRhLgo+IAo+ IEJ5IGRlZmluaXRpb24gb2YgZGVsdGEgYW5kIHRoZXRhLCB3ZSBleHBlY3QgdGhhdAo+IChUMi1U MSk9ZGVsdGErdGhldGEKPiBTaW1pbGFybHksIHdlIGFsc28gZXhwZWN0IHRoYXQKPiAoVDQtVDMp PWRlbHRhLXRoZXRhCj4gCj4gU28gd2UgaGF2ZSB0d28gZXF1YXRpb25zIHdpdGggdHdvIHVua25v d25zIChkZWx0YSwgYW5kIHRoZXRhKS4gQmFzZWQgb24KPiB0aGVzZSB0d28gZXF1YXRpb25zIHdl IGNhbiBpc29sYXRlIGRlbHRhIGFuZCB0aGV0YSwgYW5kIGdldCB0aGUgdHdvCj4gZXF1YXRpb25z IGdpdmVuIGluIFJGQyA1OTA1LCBwYWdlIDI5Ogo+IAo+IHRoZXRhID0gMS8yICogWyhUMi1UMSkg KyAoVDMtVDQpXQo+IGRlbHRhID0gKFQ0LVQxKSAtIChUMy1UMikKPiAKPiBUYWwuCj4gCj4gCj4g WzFdIE1pbGxzLCBEYXZpZCBMLiAiSW50ZXJuZXQgdGltZSBzeW5jaHJvbml6YXRpb246IHRoZSBu ZXR3b3JrIHRpbWUKPiBwcm90b2NvbC4iIElFRUUgVHJhbnNhY3Rpb25zIG9uIGNvbW11bmljYXRp b25zIDM5LjEwICgxOTkxKTogMTQ4Mi0xNDkzLgo+IAo+IAo+IAo+IE9uIE1vbiwgTWF5IDIyLCAy MDE3IGF0IDEyOjQxIFBNLCBVbHJpY2ggV2luZGwgPAo+IFVscmljaC5XaW5kbEByei51bmktcmVn ZW5zYnVyZy5kZT4gd3JvdGU6Cj4gCj4+ID4+PiBUYWwgTWl6cmFoaSA8dGFsLm1penJhaGkucGhk QGdtYWlsLmNvbT4gc2NocmllYiBhbSAxOS4wNS4yMDE3IHVtCj4+IDE1OjAwIGluCj4+IE5hY2hy aWNodAo+PiA8Q0FCVUUzWD1OQytzVFlpOWs0SD15UVQ2cm5MWmhBc3ljbUZ1UE9jbmh4NkNQWmdY SDN3QG1haWwuZ21haWwuY29tPjoKPj4gPiBIaSBVbHJpY2gsCj4+ID4KPj4gPj5UaGUgT2Zmc2V0 ICh0aGV0YSkgYXMgZGVmaW5lZCBwZXIgUkZDIDU5MDUsIHBhZ2UgMjkgKE9mZnNldCA9ICgoVDIg LSBUMSkKPj4gKwo+PiA+IChUMwo+PiA+Pi0gVDQpKSAvIDIpIHNlZW1zIHRvIGJlIGV4YWN0bHkg aGFsZiBvZiB0aGUgZGVsYXkgKGRlbHRhKSBpZiB0aGUgY2xvY2tzCj4+ID4gYXJlIGluCj4+ID4+ cGVyZmVjdCBzeW5jLgo+PiA+Cj4+ID4gTm90IGV4YWN0bHkuCj4+ID4KPj4gPiBBY2NvcmRpbmcg dG8gUkZDIDU5MDUsIHBhZ2UgMjk6Cj4+ID4gVGhlIG9mZnNldCB0aGV0YSBpcyBnaXZlbiBieSB0 aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIHZhbHVlOgo+PiA+IHRoZXRhPSgoVDItVDEpKyhUMy1UNCkpLzIKPj4gPiBU aGUgZGVsYXkgKGFmdGVyIHNsaWdodGx5IHJlYXJyYW5naW5nIHRoZSB0ZXJtcykgaXM6Cj4+IGRl bHRhPSgoVDItVDEpKyhUNC1UMykpCj4+Cj4+IFRoZSBhYm92ZSBpcyB0aGUgcmVqZWN0ZWQgZXJy YXRhIGZvcm11bGEsIHJpZ2h0Pwo+Pgo+PiA+Cj4+ID4gTm90IGp1c3QgYSBmYWN0b3Igb2YgMi4K Pj4KPj4gSWYgSSByZWFycmFuZ2UgdGVybXMsIEkgKHdobyBtYXkgYmUgd3JvbmcpIGdldDoKPj4g RGVsYXkgPSBUNC1UMyArIChUMi1UMSkgW2Zyb20gKFQ0IC0gVDEpIC0gKFQzIC0gVDIpXQo+PiBP ZmZzZXQgPSAoVDItVDEgLSAoVDQtVDMpKSAvIDIgW2Zyb20gKChUMiAtIFQxKSArIChUMyAtIFQ0 KSkgLyAyXQo+Pgo+PiBTbyB0aGUgb2Zmc2V0IGlzIGhhbGYgb2YgdGhlIGRpZmZlcmVuY2UgYmV0 d2VlbiB0cmFuc21pdCBhbmQgcmVjZWl2ZQpkZWxheT8KPj4gVGhlIGFzc3VtcHRpb24gaXMgdGhh dCBhbnkgYXN5bW1ldHJ5IGlzIHNvbGVseSBjYXVzZWQgYnkgYSBjbG9jayBvZmZzZXQKPj4gKGFu ZAo+PiBub3QgYnkgdGhlIG5ldHdvcmspLiBJIGRvbid0IHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgd2h5IGhhbGYgb2Yg dGhlIHZhbHVlIGlzIHRha2VuLgpDYW4KPj4gc29tZSBvbmUgZXhwbGFpbj8KPj4KPj4gUmVnYXJk cywKPj4gVWxyaWNoCj4+Cj4+ID4KPj4gPiBJbnR1aXRpdmVseSwgd2UgY2FuIG9ic2VydmUgdHdv IHRoaW5nczoKPj4gPgo+PiA+IC0gV2hlbiB0aGUgb2Zmc2V0IGlzIHplcm8gd2Ugd2lsbCBoYXZl IHRoZXRhPTAgYW5kICB0aHVzCihUMi1UMSk9KFQ0LVQzKSwKPj4gPiB3aGljaCBtZWFucyBvdXIg ZGVsYXkgbWVhc3VyZW1lbnQgd291bGQgYXBwZWFyIHRvIGJlIHBlcmZlY3RseQpzeW1tZXRyaWMu Cj4+ID4gLSBJZiB0aGUgZGVsYXkgaXMgemVybyAob3IgZGVsYXkgPDwgb2Zmc2V0KSwgdGhlbiBp dCBpcyBjbGVhciB3aHkKKFQyLVQxKQo+PiA+IGlzIG9uZSBtZWFzdXJlbWVudCBvZiB0aGUgb2Zm c2V0LCBhbmQgKFQzLVQ0KSBpcyBhbm90aGVyIG1lYXN1cmVtZW50IG9mCj4+IHRoZQo+PiA+IG9m ZnNldCwgc28gdGhldGEgaXMgc2ltcGx5IHRoZSBhdmVyYWdlIGJldHdlZW4gdGhlc2UgdHdvIG1l YXN1cmVtZW50cy4KPj4gPgo+PiA+IE15IHR3byBjZW50cy4uLgo+PiA+IFRhbC4KPj4gPgo+PiA+ Cj4+ID4gT24gRnJpLCBNYXkgMTksIDIwMTcgYXQgMTA6MDggQU0sIFVscmljaCBXaW5kbCA8Cj4+ ID4gVWxyaWNoLldpbmRsQHJ6LnVuaS1yZWdlbnNidXJnLmRlPiB3cm90ZToKPj4gPgo+PiA+PiBI aSEKPj4gPj4KPj4gPj4gSSBmb3VuZCB0aGF0IEkgaGFkIHNlbnQgdGhpcyBpc3N1ZSB0byBEYXZl IE1pbGxzIGxvbmdlciB0aW1lIGFnbywgYW5kCml0Cj4+ID4+IHNlZW1zCj4+ID4+IHRoZSBidWcg d2FzIGluIFJGQyAxMzA1IChub3QgMTMwMyBhcyBtaXMtdHlwZWQgaW4gbXkgbWVzc2FnZSkgYXMg d2VsbDoKPj4gPj4KPj4gPj4gLS0tcXVvdGUgKDIwLjEwLjIwMTUgMTM6MTgpLS0tCj4+ID4+IEkg aG9wZSB5b3UnbGwgZXhjdXNlIGEgc3R1cGlkIHF1ZXN0aW9uLCBidXQgaXQgc2VlbXMgIkknbSBz aXR0aW5nIG9uCnRoZQo+PiA+PiB3aXJlIjoKPj4gPj4gVGhlIE9mZnNldCAodGhldGEpIGFzIGRl ZmluZWQgcGVyIFJGQyA1OTA1LCBwYWdlIDI5IChPZmZzZXQgPSAoKFQyIC0KPj4gVDEpICsKPj4g Pj4gKFQzCj4+ID4+IC0gVDQpKSAvIDIpIHNlZW1zIHRvIGJlIGV4YWN0bHkgaGFsZiBvZiB0aGUg ZGVsYXkgKGRlbHRhKSBpZiB0aGUgY2xvY2tzCj4+ID4+IGFyZSBpbgo+PiA+PiBwZXJmZWN0IHN5 bmMuIEl0IHNlZW1zIEknbSBtaXNzaW5nIHNvbWV0aGluZywgYnV0IEkgY2Fubm90IHNlZSBpdCEg SQo+PiB0cmllZAo+PiA+PiB0bwo+PiA+PiB2aXN1YWxpemUgdGhlIGNhbGN1bGF0aW9ucyAoc2Vl IGF0dGFjaGVkIGltYWdlKSwgYnV0IHN0aWxsIEkgdGhpbmsKPj4gPj4gc29tZXRoaW5nIGlzCj4+ ID4+IG1pc3NpbmcuIEFzIFJGQyAxMzAzIGhhcyB0aGUgc2FtZSBkZWZpbml0aW9uLCBJIGJlbGll dmUgdG8gYmUgd3JvbmcsCmJ1dAo+PiA+PiB3b3VsZAo+PiA+PiB5b3UgcGxlYXNlIHRlYWNoIG1l Pwo+PiA+PiAtLS1lbmQgcXVvdGUtLS0KPj4gPj4KPj4gPj4gUmVnYXJkcywKPj4gPj4gVWxyaWNo Cj4+ID4+Cj4+ID4+ID4+PiBSRkMgRXJyYXRhIFN5c3RlbSA8cmZjLWVkaXRvckByZmMtZWRpdG9y Lm9yZz4gc2NocmllYiBhbQo+PiAxNS4wNS4yMDE3IHVtCj4+ID4+IDE4OjIzIGluCj4+ID4+IE5h Y2hyaWNodCA8MjAxNzA1MTUxNjIzNDQuQjk3ODJCODBDODNAcmZjLWVkaXRvci5vcmc+Ogo+PiA+ PiA+IFRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgZXJyYXRhIHJlcG9ydCBoYXMgYmVlbiBzdWJtaXR0ZWQgZm9yIFJG QzU5MDUsCj4+ID4+ID4gIk5ldHdvcmsgVGltZSBQcm90b2NvbCBWZXJzaW9uIDQ6IFByb3RvY29s IGFuZCBBbGdvcml0aG1zCj4+IFNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24iLgo+PiA+PiA+Cj4+ID4+ID4gLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0KPj4gPj4gPiBZb3UgbWF5IHJldmlldyB0 aGUgcmVwb3J0IGJlbG93IGFuZCBhdDoKPj4gPj4gPiBodHRwOi8vd3d3LnJmYy1lZGl0b3Iub3Jn L2VycmF0YS9laWQ1MDIwIAo+PiA+PiA+Cj4+ID4+ID4gLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0KPj4gPj4gPiBUeXBlOiBUZWNobmljYWwKPj4gPj4gPiBSZXBvcnRlZCBi eTogRmVyZW5jIFfDoWduZXIgPHdmZXJpQG5paWYuaHU+Cj4+ID4+ID4KPj4gPj4gPiBTZWN0aW9u OiA4Cj4+ID4+ID4KPj4gPj4gPiBPcmlnaW5hbCBUZXh0Cj4+ID4+ID4gLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQo+ PiA+PiA+IHRoZXRhID0gVChCKSAtIFQoQSkgPSAxLzIgKiBbKFQyLVQxKSArIChUMy1UNCldCj4+ ID4+ID4KPj4gPj4gPiBDb3JyZWN0ZWQgVGV4dAo+PiA+PiA+IC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tCj4+ID4+ ID4gdGhldGEgPSBUKEIpIC0gVChBKSA9IDEvMiAqIFsoVDItVDEpICsgKFQ0LVQzKV0KPj4gPj4g Pgo+PiA+PiA+IE5vdGVzCj4+ID4+ID4gLS0tLS0KPj4gPj4gPiBUaGUgY29ycmVzcG9uZGluZyBj b2RlIGxpbmUgaW4gQS41LjEuMS4gYWdyZWVzIHdpdGggdGhpcyBjb3JyZWN0aW9uOgo+PiA+PiA+ Cj4+ID4+ID4gb2Zmc2V0ID0gKExGUDJEKHItPnJlYyAtIHItPm9yZykgKyBMRlAyRChyLT5kc3Qg LSByLT54bXQpKSAvIDI7Cj4+ID4+ID4KPj4gPj4gPiB0YWtpbmcgRmlndXJlIDcgaW50byBhY2Nv dW50Ogo+PiA+PiA+Cj4+ID4+ID4gfCBvcmcgICAgICAgfCBUMSAgICAgICAgIHwgb3JpZ2luIHRp bWVzdGFtcCAgICAgIHwKPj4gPj4gPiB8IHJlYyAgICAgICB8IFQyICAgICAgICAgfCByZWNlaXZl IHRpbWVzdGFtcCAgICAgfAo+PiA+PiA+IHwgeG10ICAgICAgIHwgVDMgICAgICAgICB8IHRyYW5z bWl0IHRpbWVzdGFtcCAgICB8Cj4+ID4+ID4gfCBkc3QgICAgICAgfCBUNCAgICAgICAgIHwgZGVz dGluYXRpb24gdGltZXN0YW1wIHwKPj4gPj4gPgo+PiA+PiA+IEluc3RydWN0aW9uczoKPj4gPj4g PiAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tCj4+ID4+ID4gVGhpcyBlcnJhdHVtIGlzIGN1cnJlbnRseSBwb3N0ZWQg YXMgIlJlcG9ydGVkIi4gSWYgbmVjZXNzYXJ5LCBwbGVhc2UKPj4gPj4gPiB1c2UgIlJlcGx5IEFs bCIgdG8gZGlzY3VzcyB3aGV0aGVyIGl0IHNob3VsZCBiZSB2ZXJpZmllZCBvcgo+PiA+PiA+IHJl amVjdGVkLiBXaGVuIGEgZGVjaXNpb24gaXMgcmVhY2hlZCwgdGhlIHZlcmlmeWluZyBwYXJ0eQo+ PiA+PiA+IGNhbiBsb2cgaW4gdG8gY2hhbmdlIHRoZSBzdGF0dXMgYW5kIGVkaXQgdGhlIHJlcG9y dCwgaWYgbmVjZXNzYXJ5Lgo+PiA+PiA+Cj4+ID4+ID4gLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0KPj4gPj4gPiBSRkM1OTA1IChkcmFmdC1pZXRmLW50cC1udHB2NC1wcm90 by0xMykKPj4gPj4gPiAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQo+PiA+ PiA+IFRpdGxlICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgOiBOZXR3b3JrIFRpbWUgUHJvdG9jb2wgVmVyc2lvbiA0 OiBQcm90b2NvbCBhbmQKPj4gPj4gPiBBbGdvcml0aG1zIFNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24KPj4gPj4gPiBQ dWJsaWNhdGlvbiBEYXRlICAgIDogSnVuZSAyMDEwCj4+ID4+ID4gQXV0aG9yKHMpICAgICAgICAg ICA6IEQuIE1pbGxzLCBKLiBNYXJ0aW4sIEVkLiwgSi4gQnVyYmFuaywgVy4gS2FzY2gKPj4gPj4g PiBDYXRlZ29yeSAgICAgICAgICAgIDogUFJPUE9TRUQgU1RBTkRBUkQKPj4gPj4gPiBTb3VyY2Ug ICAgICAgICAgICAgIDogTmV0d29yayBUaW1lIFByb3RvY29sCj4+ID4+ID4gQXJlYSAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICA6IEludGVybmV0Cj4+ID4+ID4gU3RyZWFtICAgICAgICAgICAgICA6IElFVEYKPj4g Pj4gPiBWZXJpZnlpbmcgUGFydHkgICAgIDogSUVTRwo+PiA+PiA+IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fCj4+ID4+ID4gbnRwd2cgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0 Cj4+ID4+ID4gbnRwd2dAbGlzdHMubnRwLm9yZyAKPj4gPj4gPiBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHMubnRwLm9y Zy9saXN0aW5mby9udHB3ZyAKPj4gPj4KPj4gPj4KPj4gPj4KPj4gPj4gX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KPj4gPj4gbnRwd2cgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0 Cj4+ID4+IG50cHdnQGxpc3RzLm50cC5vcmcgCj4+ID4+IGh0dHA6Ly9saXN0cy5udHAub3JnL2xp c3RpbmZvL250cHdnIAo+PiA+Pgo+Pgo+Pgo+Pgo+PgoKCgpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXwpudHB3ZyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QKbnRwd2dAbGlzdHMu bnRwLm9yZwpodHRwOi8vbGlzdHMubnRwLm9yZy9saXN0aW5mby9udHB3Zw== From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Mon May 22 06:01:40 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 D753D12E3AE for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 06:01:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 GzaGXXPxX3QK for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 06:01:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDAE312E052 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 06:01:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD0EE86DBD4 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 13:01:33 +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 D278D86D831 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 13:01:30 +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 1dCmxe-000FsU-Uk for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Mon, 22 May 2017 13:01:30 +0000 Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4DAD12E052; Mon, 22 May 2017 06:01:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.51.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <149545808169.16302.13047861191419004608@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 06:01:21 -0700 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-bcp-04.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 : Network Time Protocol Best Current Practices Authors : Denis Reilly Harlan Stenn Dieter Sibold Filename : draft-ietf-ntp-bcp-04.txt Pages : 22 Date : 2017-05-22 Abstract: NTP Version 4 (NTPv4) has been widely used since its publication as RFC 5905 [RFC5905]. This documentation is a collection of Best Practices from across the NTP community. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-bcp/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp-bcp-04 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ntp-bcp-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ntp-bcp-04 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 Mon May 22 06:05:11 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 6035512E050 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 06:05:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.791 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=oroliagroup.onmicrosoft.com 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 Xx8pn7vHXaMl for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 06:05:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3CA4127873 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 06:05:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A55DD86DBD2 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 13:05:09 +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 23D7986D831 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 13:05:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-he1eur01on0057.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([104.47.0.57] helo=EUR01-HE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1dCn17-000G0f-FS for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Mon, 22 May 2017 13:05:06 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=OROLIAGROUP.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-spectracom-orolia-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=H0usQFd6P7tiw+UifA/q11/ayOriD5bfvohldQBmoKA=; b=TeaSTFC/S4y3GcGOeFS2lfrKoE54LgCBpGppUiTjb4JDZujP+Zv2biiBYAAg4dgTxWHnV6qMj6RfwgWjfPH27TkhxqjIqsU/fzDBBytzHpIrmQ9tbPEHtlLjnqd+BS1vf9RxYQNVu0xQ0t6/U6Y7QwgcpRf2tSuMLXoNgCwbx6I= Received: from AM3PR06MB1202.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.163.60.28) by AM3PR06MB1201.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.163.60.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1101.14; Mon, 22 May 2017 13:04:55 +0000 Received: from AM3PR06MB1202.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::518f:a2f2:1045:25f7]) by AM3PR06MB1202.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::518f:a2f2:1045:25f7%15]) with mapi id 15.01.1101.019; Mon, 22 May 2017 13:04:54 +0000 From: Denis Reilly To: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" Thread-Topic: New version of BCP Thread-Index: AdLS/ADRj9uawxvxSB2i4blIlG/Q6Q== Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 13:04:54 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: lists.ntp.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;lists.ntp.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=spectracom.orolia.com; x-originating-ip: [72.230.254.0] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM3PR06MB1201; 7:Ja9Kaa0OOgNgggs8HkX9YBZY9wvJk/JESpJkb0tbjIl17G/3hAZX+/4UtpdfS4bed+ITGi6XGqV5lktS4dYUwyUSgiwhF5bOCs39p8pBoz35Ru7VOnwKwIGItRIimsSpvVQeAACYHWjNb4VPI6chfoxup+cKkMFUmve/QoEm6bHdW/fpXjXzKdGOn+ctUpFmSsZOLwsNA1x2cC+Qb6UREFemLh1FnCMUtzvX2UQxVITO+ElGbDltpVMzlYEzGMZCA0h21JeEGJAzneoeVfUZ18EZyp+ipnsB5cwj27PK/3npitIUBMPSWiX39nCPBY5e5RYXa/YOkl8wadYw/Kn/oA== x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM3PR06MB1201: x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 301fa968-11b3-438e-853c-08d4a1132433 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075)(201703131423075)(201703031133081); SRVR:AM3PR06MB1201; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(120809045254105); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(6041248)(20161123564025)(20161123555025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123558100)(20161123560025)(20161123562025)(6072148); SRVR:AM3PR06MB1201; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:AM3PR06MB1201; x-forefront-prvs: 03152A99FF x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(39840400002)(39450400003)(39410400002)(39400400002)(3846002)(25786009)(1730700003)(66066001)(8936002)(3280700002)(102836003)(6116002)(81166006)(38730400002)(478600001)(3660700001)(110136004)(53936002)(9686003)(6506006)(5640700003)(74316002)(99286003)(6436002)(6306002)(86362001)(2906002)(55016002)(2351001)(5250100002)(189998001)(7696004)(2900100001)(7736002)(3480700004)(50986999)(2501003)(33656002)(6916009)(305945005)(8676002)(54356999)(42882006)(5660300001)(7756004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM3PR06MB1201; H:AM3PR06MB1202.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: spectracom.orolia.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 May 2017 13:04:54.8951 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: a263030c-9c1b-421f-9471-1dec0b29c664 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM3PR06MB1201 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 104.47.0.57 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: denis.reilly@spectracom.orolia.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: [ntpwg] New version of BCP 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="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" Hello, everyone. I have uploaded a new version (v04) of the NTP BCP ahead = of our interim meeting later this week, based on the WGLC feedback. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ntp-bcp-04 There are general changes for readability, as well as more substantial chan= ges to the "sources of time", "leap seconds", "autokey", "avoiding daemon r= estart attacks", and "anycast". Best Regards, -- Denis Reilly=A0 |=A0 Lead Engineer=A0 |=A0 denis.reilly@spectracom.orolia.c= om (585)321-5837 _______________________________________________ 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 Thu May 25 07:14:13 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 24ACD12969E for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 07:14:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.79 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=isoc.org 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 t5uOJNjoWC0Y for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 07:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83F8B129AAD for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 07:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 225B586DBC2 for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 14:14:10 +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 10D9086DAB4 for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 14:14:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-by2nam01on0083.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([104.47.34.83] helo=NAM01-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1dDtWY-0001ga-9S for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Thu, 25 May 2017 14:14:06 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isoc.org; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=jzFZu/gQg+iUJ6fRZLVgMs02uwqMSO2//xUYcbSeKRc=; b=CWLDZgGSHCXogCMmJM5vN0UmJ2vbFyHaSCHCdOTZa+z7X+gDKOi6KXi3zzQpqujiF+QIczbztgGiHqY4dZIfRMK9r3EzqU0p/DuJO2EYPd4SK+UWQ/3O1KG4lTlq2y+dcThVpHZmXk4JylzOH5ft+vSrdJsaaMVRfeX/sLh+cNo= Received: from CY4PR06MB2456.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.169.186.136) by CY4PR06MB2456.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.169.186.136) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1124.9; Thu, 25 May 2017 14:13:55 +0000 Received: from CY4PR06MB2456.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.169.186.136]) by CY4PR06MB2456.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.169.186.136]) with mapi id 15.01.1124.011; Thu, 25 May 2017 14:13:55 +0000 From: Karen O'Donoghue To: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" Thread-Topic: Reminder: NTP working group meeting today (in 45 minutes) Thread-Index: AQHS1WEkJTPen0QGGUeZSoAuxkqUGQ== Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 14:13:55 +0000 Message-ID: References: <149502828139.6737.16204807926878538742@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: lists.ntp.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; lists.ntp.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=isoc.org; x-originating-ip: [24.245.108.20] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CY4PR06MB2456; 7:oVSwQIGCWPNA90lrDblFSUtV21HqrlrpKyeuYB+LIyfPSRHzxvkGOedEbcIFioHtsaeMVj7QabePXUk64+pmMulkuj9Lt7Pz849gbW55ophYAR3iFQSIF6gOs3xLXsv+N4xoOmrHtWf8n8i3hzeQkbyjzJaJIy4eeimNL0VrWCb/zMiBqJa61mIwzt6yTSTNxZlIqDhDJaHRT9x5GOq4xZu8oGchZIqcfKKxY8OAzMDHQBIRyUMQTN5srIESC1tB6F4hGSQKBfJAClq/c8NouZBAeXEnynWyxykTEPpcN3f67yTynRV6ZVDFHnMuu7IFLpov8N62tswaBSLCOlkklA== x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CY4PR06MB2456: x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 6dda61bf-f1cb-4325-b225-08d4a3784787 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075)(201703131423075)(201703031133081); SRVR:CY4PR06MB2456; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(192374486261705)(257447070540367); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(6041248)(20161123560025)(20161123558100)(20161123555025)(20161123564025)(20161123562025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(6072148); SRVR:CY4PR06MB2456; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CY4PR06MB2456; x-forefront-prvs: 0318501FAE x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(39830400002)(39450400003)(39400400002)(39410400002)(497574002)(377454003)(377424004)(12213003)(3280700002)(3660700001)(2900100001)(966005)(2906002)(50986999)(3846002)(54356999)(102836003)(6116002)(122556002)(76176999)(25786009)(83716003)(82746002)(2501003)(5660300001)(54896002)(6306002)(6512007)(6916009)(38730400002)(110136004)(99286003)(66066001)(7736002)(7906003)(2351001)(53936002)(575784001)(86362001)(236005)(36756003)(6506006)(77096006)(81166006)(478600001)(8936002)(8676002)(1730700003)(6486002)(189998001)(5640700003)(606005)(6436002)(33656002)(27393003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:CY4PR06MB2456; H:CY4PR06MB2456.namprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: isoc.org X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 25 May 2017 14:13:55.5060 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 89f84dfb-7285-4810-bc4d-8b9b5794554f X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR06MB2456 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 104.47.34.83 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: odonoghue@isoc.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: [ntpwg] Reminder: NTP working group meeting today (in 45 minutes) 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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5456111678541351325==" Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" --===============5456111678541351325== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E57B78D0C1D14123B4E3EC8368769FDEisocorg_" --_000_E57B78D0C1D14123B4E3EC8368769FDEisocorg_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Folks, As a reminder, this meeting will be starting in 45 minutes. Karen Begin forwarded message: From: IESG Secretary > Subject: Network Time Protocol (ntp) WG Virtual Meeting: 2017-05-25 Date: May 17, 2017 at 9:38:01 AM EDT To: "IETF-Announce" > Cc: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org The Network Time Protocol (ntp) Working Group will hold a virtual interim meeting on 2017-05-25 from 15:00 to 17:00 GMT. Agenda: 1. Overview/summary/next steps for the NTS documents. draft-ietf-ntp-network-time-security (no discussion planned, but included here for completeness as part of the s= uite of security documents thus far) draft-ietf-ntp-cms-for-nts-message draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp 2. BCP: Overview/summary/ next steps from the WGLC draft-ietf-ntp-bcp 3. Way forward for draft-dfranke-ntp-data-minimization-02 4. Way forward for draft-ietf-ntp-mac-00 5. Way forward for drafts related to extension fields and refid draft-ietf-ntp-refid-updates draft-stenn-ntp-suggest-refid draft-stenn-ntp-i-do 6. Overview/summary/next steps for the YANG model draft-wu-ntp-ntp-cfg 7. AOB Zoom information: Topic: IETF NTP/TICTOC virtual interim meeting Time: May 25, 2017 11:00 AM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://isoc.zoom.us/j/467750875 Or iPhone one-tap (US Toll): +14086380968,467750875# or +16465588656,46775= 0875# Or Telephone: Dial: +1 408 638 0968 (US Toll) or +1 646 558 8656 (US Toll) Meeting ID: 467 750 875 International numbers available: https://isoc.zoom.us/zoomconference?m= =3D4A-2eHSEGHNG7gUhLy1FLJkEKv0oFwO0 Information about remote participation: https://isoc.zoom.us/j/467750875 --_000_E57B78D0C1D14123B4E3EC8368769FDEisocorg_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <13F931F1D7C89D46AF3E7724E5436E1D@namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Folks,

As a reminder, this meeting will be starting in 45 minutes.=

Karen

Begin forwarded message:

From: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Network Time Protocol (nt= p) WG Virtual Meeting: 2017-05-25
Date: May 17, 2017 at 9:38:01 AM EDT
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>= ;
Cc: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org

The Network Time Protocol (ntp) Working Group will hold
a virtual interim meeting on 2017-05-25 from 15:00 to 17:00 GMT.

Agenda:
1. Overview/summary/next steps for the NTS documents.
draft-ietf-ntp-network-time-security

(no discussion planned, but included here for completeness as part of the s= uite of security documents thus far)
draft-ietf-ntp-cms-for-nts-message
draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp

2. BCP: Overview/summary/ next steps from the WGLC
draft-ietf-ntp-bcp

3. Way forward for
draft-dfranke-ntp-data-minimization-02

4. Way forward for
draft-ietf-ntp-mac-00

5. Way forward for drafts related to extension fields and refid
draft-ietf-ntp-refid-updates
draft-stenn-ntp-suggest-refid
draft-stenn-ntp-i-do

6. Overview/summary/next steps for the YANG model
draft-wu-ntp-ntp-cfg


7. AOB


Zoom information:

Topic: IETF NTP/TICTOC virtual interim meeting
Time: May 25, 2017 11:00 AM Eastern Time (US and Canada)

Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://isoc.zoom.us/j/467750875

Or iPhone one-tap (US Toll):  +14086380968,467750875# or +1646= 5588656,467750875#

Or Telephone:
   Dial: +1 408 638 0968 (US Toll) or +1 646 558 865= 6 (US Toll)
   Meeting ID: 467 750 875
   International numbers available: https://isoc.zoom.us/zoomconference?m=3D4A-2eHSEGHNG7gUhLy1FLJkEKv0oFwO0


Information about remote participation:
https://isoc.zoom.u= s/j/467750875


--_000_E57B78D0C1D14123B4E3EC8368769FDEisocorg_-- --===============5456111678541351325== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg --===============5456111678541351325==-- From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Thu May 25 11:03:14 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 3F0B5129B94 for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:03:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.791 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=isoc.org 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 NT3RJVGO5hoo for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:03:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4C3B129BF0 for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:03:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 869D486DBCE for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 18:03:12 +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 DA4E986D83B for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 18:03:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bn3nam01on0079.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([104.47.33.79] helo=NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1dDx6C-0009QI-9u for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Thu, 25 May 2017 18:03:08 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isoc.org; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=vx6+9olvOPyaVAeB7pEuVssbgxMlD0FxkjbKlHTY9tM=; b=XMyJYZL3zPpNpTGwhORjUujEh/Q+bM5WJtWklzVfiHdhftBTSWuZC2ghpF+xJlEknjABXCxDw6hrjbc4i8yXdQ7ZGaMIirBHdRug7xRFyu7cm2m527NpkNzxuYtZeZUlI0ASr7a/PuurmcBcFwt5rsrOtCPtVy0Ux+IOaA0VtS8= Received: from CY4PR06MB2456.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.169.186.136) by CY4PR06MB2455.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.169.186.135) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1124.9; Thu, 25 May 2017 18:02:57 +0000 Received: from CY4PR06MB2456.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.169.186.136]) by CY4PR06MB2456.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.169.186.136]) with mapi id 15.01.1124.011; Thu, 25 May 2017 18:02:57 +0000 From: Karen O'Donoghue To: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" Thread-Topic: call for adoption for draft-wu-ntp-ntp-cfg (as NTP YANG Data Model) Thread-Index: AQHS1YEj2UZFzJefCEikOYDCyfDEMg== Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 18:02:57 +0000 Message-ID: <6DD5264D-E9CD-474D-ABFD-2E2B18BBEBAE@isoc.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: lists.ntp.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; lists.ntp.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=isoc.org; x-originating-ip: [24.245.108.20] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CY4PR06MB2455; 7:jUfxzvUrSV9wFeIZUDMJVqnBtQ1AbS4rY4vIHOHqvZoXCKJpUaavcsstMr4QEwpXdfp51iGEWg06gkIbZFM4aax8/S36HGVCeXt/rQ5182gMbD0WQxCQWebzlS8+BP4Ndq0cvHMztJ5e6d6JZ+VMGP7NaPr1yT0IkzpoYbREc4eJLObaQmyzpm23k4bIN7Uf7sOeBXfEbObaN6hOtbWVAf3n0DuLxOwglYVNrEvUn0Eo/oqc6+01sfnBiRYRuQMKXLpEOHT6iBiE9ZArlX7M6Xc7QVe8MA62D5kJZ1cFl1ogd7CbEqr6hgSco+XRqkTyJoVgQq4eQe6gq4l7mIirHQ== x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CY4PR06MB2455: x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e3ef84b7-e415-4d2c-3c35-08d4a3984620 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075)(201703131423075)(201703031133081); SRVR:CY4PR06MB2455; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(120809045254105); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(6041248)(20161123558100)(20161123560025)(20161123555025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123564025)(20161123562025)(6072148); SRVR:CY4PR06MB2455; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CY4PR06MB2455; x-forefront-prvs: 0318501FAE x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(39410400002)(39400400002)(39830400002)(39450400003)(8676002)(54356999)(6512007)(2351001)(606005)(50986999)(6506006)(8936002)(2501003)(81166006)(25786009)(66066001)(236005)(5640700003)(6486002)(99286003)(1730700003)(54896002)(6306002)(53936002)(38730400002)(230783001)(110136004)(478600001)(77096006)(3660700001)(558084003)(5660300001)(122556002)(2900100001)(966005)(2906002)(3280700002)(7906003)(33656002)(36756003)(6916009)(7736002)(3846002)(102836003)(189998001)(86362001)(82746002)(83716003)(217873001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:CY4PR06MB2455; H:CY4PR06MB2456.namprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: isoc.org X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 25 May 2017 18:02:57.0769 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 89f84dfb-7285-4810-bc4d-8b9b5794554f X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR06MB2455 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 104.47.33.79 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: odonoghue@isoc.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: [ntpwg] call for adoption for draft-wu-ntp-ntp-cfg (as NTP YANG Data Model) 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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5311812160542677393==" Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" --===============5311812160542677393== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6DD5264DE9CD474DABFD2E2B18BBEBAEisocorg_" --_000_6DD5264DE9CD474DABFD2E2B18BBEBAEisocorg_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Folks, Is anyone opposed to the adoption of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wu-ntp-ntp-cfg/ as an NTP working group document? I proposed that the draft filename be renamed as "draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-= model" if adopted. Regards, Karen --_000_6DD5264DE9CD474DABFD2E2B18BBEBAEisocorg_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <956C5066E9A68940B1902925EEDCAD0B@namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Folks,

Is anyone opposed to the adoption of 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wu-ntp-ntp-cfg/
as an NTP working group document? 

I proposed that the draft filename be renamed as "draf= t-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model" if adopted. 

Regards,
Karen

--_000_6DD5264DE9CD474DABFD2E2B18BBEBAEisocorg_-- --===============5311812160542677393== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg --===============5311812160542677393==-- From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Thu May 25 11:08:28 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 90D94129BAD for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:08:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.791 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=isoc.org 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 sD41qEk4du5h for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:08:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A80A5124217 for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F7C186DBC9 for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 18:08:26 +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 82FA786DAB4 for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 18:08:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bn3nam01on0057.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([104.47.33.57] helo=NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1dDxBG-0009bg-3k for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Thu, 25 May 2017 18:08:22 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isoc.org; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=h+lCvKp7s2dh0Dg/Rblv6z1snbHhudY5t+yCcRiOkjU=; b=HEMpzFPwQ1X1lI2oPrFwzbiKGpHiCoRFNctKOwXd3WlJ+BMGj2/LfMhO66v/eGzzCcvmLP9QJGFWN2oNILnfUaZoTZPqXCjGYURK97fdcd9eprs/zHamOco6VL3NhhwBYqUNSGEmpuLQAXCUvJVeNS7fm2C7hYSFk4iVkCLykTU= Received: from CY4PR06MB2456.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.169.186.136) by CY4PR06MB2455.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.169.186.135) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1124.9; Thu, 25 May 2017 18:08:13 +0000 Received: from CY4PR06MB2456.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.169.186.136]) by CY4PR06MB2456.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.169.186.136]) with mapi id 15.01.1124.011; Thu, 25 May 2017 18:08:12 +0000 From: Karen O'Donoghue To: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" Thread-Topic: draft attendance and key actions/timelines from today's meeting (25 May 2017) Thread-Index: AQHS1YHfOOn2ZDH8NkyRTFtvb8JazQ== Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 18:08:12 +0000 Message-ID: <2FB890EA-17EC-4CA2-AE60-28A426FC38D2@isoc.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: lists.ntp.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; lists.ntp.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=isoc.org; x-originating-ip: [24.245.108.20] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CY4PR06MB2455; 7:cxPhDmYSngSpnAzq+LmaoLW9W3lgcFsjbUojpL3K52jIKahaV9utPSKhqLTRdaJcJhnHbOq/g8grSQSBrM9lRUVa2xrVACn3wyI8pFFbwKIyBSw5zW5hDF75CzGielyNsBjAR02UtgjeJccJ2Nvu3MVuJfI5vTOx2adbUeKMOeT5TGueDtuaOxdsy6ACnqczslTGpyJ/Lbpi/n94ZXX8rKeuCC+1cW3GCg+KwVcMHCGfrvwR1f9JrhZd36bXtMc5q7S3JiNkmo96R0EoRAdcOc5PTOEdGk9hzi+tLiD1k+nwn9ZVymGeUyf9nv3gBOD3bX3Q52mqtRxfpnexHTn3uA== x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CY4PR06MB2455: x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 628f3075-9396-425a-b0a2-08d4a3990245 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075)(201703131423075)(201703031133081); SRVR:CY4PR06MB2455; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(120809045254105); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(6041248)(20161123558100)(20161123560025)(20161123555025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123564025)(20161123562025)(6072148); SRVR:CY4PR06MB2455; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CY4PR06MB2455; x-forefront-prvs: 0318501FAE x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(39410400002)(39400400002)(39830400002)(39450400003)(497574002)(8676002)(54356999)(6512007)(2351001)(606005)(50986999)(4326008)(6506006)(8936002)(2501003)(81166006)(25786009)(66066001)(236005)(5640700003)(6486002)(99286003)(1730700003)(54896002)(6306002)(53936002)(38730400002)(110136004)(478600001)(77096006)(3660700001)(5660300001)(122556002)(2900100001)(966005)(2906002)(3280700002)(7906003)(33656002)(36756003)(6916009)(7736002)(3846002)(102836003)(189998001)(86362001)(82746002)(83716003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:CY4PR06MB2455; H:CY4PR06MB2456.namprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: isoc.org X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 25 May 2017 18:08:12.7496 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 89f84dfb-7285-4810-bc4d-8b9b5794554f X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR06MB2455 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 104.47.33.57 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: odonoghue@isoc.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: [ntpwg] draft attendance and key actions/timelines from today's meeting (25 May 2017) 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: "tictoc@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8553934063455738706==" Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" --===============8553934063455738706== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2FB890EA17EC4CA2AE6028A426FC38D2isocorg_" --_000_2FB890EA17EC4CA2AE6028A426FC38D2isocorg_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Rm9sa3MsDQoNCkRpZXRlciBoYXMgYWdyZWVkIHRvIHByb2R1Y2UgYSBzb21ld2hhdCBtb3JlIGNv bXByZWhlbnNpdmUgc2V0IG9mIG1pbnV0ZXMgZm9yIHRoZSBtZWV0aW5ncy4gQmVsb3cgSSBhbSBj YXB0dXJpbmcgbXkgcmVjb2xsZWN0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBrZXkgYWN0aW9ucyBhbmQgdGltZWxpbmVz IGZvciBzb21lIG9mIG91ciB2YXJpb3VzIG9uZ29pbmcgZWZmb3J0cy4gSeKAmXZlIGFsc28gbGlz dGVkIGF0dGVuZGFuY2UgZm9yIHRoZSBtaW51dGVzICh2aXJ0dWFsIGJsdWUgc2hlZXQpLiBBZGRp dGlvbnMgYW5kIGNvcnJlY3Rpb25zIHdlbGNvbWUuIFdlIGRpZCBtaXNzIG9uZSBpdGVtIG9uIHRo ZSBhZ2VuZGEgdGhhdCBJIHJlbWVtYmVyZWQgYWZ0ZXIgdGhlIGNhbGwgKE5UUCBtb2RlIDYgY29t bWVudHMgZHJhZnQpLiBXZSB3aWxsIG5lZWQgdG8gZW5zdXJlIHdlIGRvbuKAmXQgZHJvcCBwcm9n cmVzc2lvbiBvZiB0aGF0IGRyYWZ0Lg0KDQpUaGFua3MgZXZlcnlvbmUgZm9yIGEgcHJvZHVjdGl2 ZSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIHRvZGF5Lg0KDQpSZWdhcmRzLA0KS2FyZW4NCg0KDQpEcmFmdCAtIEtleSBP dXRjb21lcy9BY3Rpb25zIGZyb20gMjUgTWF5IHZpcnR1YWwgaW50ZXJpbSBtZWV0aW5nDQo9PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ0KMS4gTlRTIGZv ciBOVFAgc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbg0KaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJh ZnQtaWV0Zi1udHAtdXNpbmctbnRzLWZvci1udHAvDQotIERhbmllbCB0byBwdWJsaXNoIHVwZGF0 ZSBieSAyNiBNYXkuDQotIFdHIGhhcyB1bnRpbCAzMSBNYXkgdG8gaW5kaWNhdGUgdGhhdCB0aGUg ZG9jdW1lbnQgaXMgTk9UIHJlYWR5IGZvciB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIGxhc3QgY2FsbCAoV0dMQykN Ci0gSWYgbm8gc3Ryb25nIG9wcG9zaXRpb24sIGRvY3VtZW50IHdpbGwgZ28gdG8gV0dMQyBpbiBl YXJseSBKdW5lLg0KLSBLcmlzdG9mIHdpbGwgd29yayBvbiB1cGRhdGluZyB0aGUgZ2VuZXJpYyBO VFMgZG9jdW1lbnQgYnkgdGhlIGVuZCBvZiBKdW5lLg0KDQoyLiBOVFAgQkNQDQpodHRwczovL2Rh dGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLW50cC1iY3AvDQotIFVwZGF0ZSBhZGRy ZXNzaW5nIGFsbCBXR0xDIGNvbW1lbnRzIGhhcyBiZWVuIHB1Ymxpc2hlZC4NCi0gV0cgaGFzIHVu dGlsIDMxIE1heSB0byBpbmRpY2F0ZSB0aGF0IHRoZSB1cGRhdGVkIGRvY3VtZW50IHNob3VsZCBO T1QgYmUgZm9yd2FyZGVkIHRvIHRoZSBJRVNHLg0KLSBDaGFpcnMgd2lsbCBmb3J3YXJkIHRvIElF U0cgaW4gZWFybHkgSnVuZSBpZiB0aGVyZSBpcyBubyBzdHJvbmcgb3Bwb3NpdGlvbi4NCg0KMy4g TlRQIGRhdGEgbWluaW1pemF0aW9uIGRyYWZ0DQpodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3Jn L2RvYy9kcmFmdC1kZnJhbmtlLW50cC1kYXRhLW1pbmltaXphdGlvbi8NCi0gQWRvcHRlZCBhcyBh IFdHIGRvY3VtZW50LCBEYW5pZWwgd2lsbCBwdWJsaXNoIGFzIGEgd2cgZG9jdW1lbnQgKEnigJl2 ZSBhdXRob3JpemVkIGFzIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtbnRwLWRhdGEtbWluaW1pemF0aW9uKQ0KLSBXb3Jr aW5nIGdyb3VwIHdpbGwgaGF2ZSBhYm91dCBhIG1vbnRoIHRvIHJldmlldywgaWYgbm8gbWFqb3Ig aXNzdWVzIGlkZW50aWZpZWQgd2lsbCBwcm9jZWVkIHRvIFdHTEMgaW4gZWFybHkgSnVseS4NCg0K NC4gTUFDIGFsZ29yaXRobSBmb3IgTlRQIChkZXByZWNhdGluZyBNRDUpDQpodHRwczovL2RhdGF0 cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLW50cC1tYWMvDQotIERvY3VtZW50IGlzIHN0 ZHMgdHJhY2sgdXBkYXRpbmcgUkZDIDU5MDUNCi0gV0cgaGFzIHVudGlsIDMxIE1heSB0byBpbmRp Y2F0ZSB0aGF0IHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCBpcyBOT1QgcmVhZHkgZm9yIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgbGFz dCBjYWxsIChXR0xDKQ0KLSBJZiBubyBzdHJvbmcgb3Bwb3NpdGlvbiwgZG9jdW1lbnQgd2lsbCBn byB0byBXR0xDIGluIGVhcmx5IEp1bmUuDQoNCjUuIEV4dGVuc2lvbiBmaWVsZCBhbmQgUkVGSUQg ZHJhZnRzDQotIG5lZWQgdG8gc2VwYXJhdGUgY2xhcmlmaWNhdGlvbnMvY29ycmVjdGlvbnMgb24g ZXhpc3RpbmcgZG9jdW1lbnRhdGlvbiBmcm9tIG5ldyBkb2N1bWVudGF0aW9uDQotIEhhcmxhbi9T aGFyb24gd2lsbCByZXB1Ymxpc2ggaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJh ZnQtaWV0Zi1udHAtcmVmaWQtdXBkYXRlcy8NCi0gSGFybGFuIHdpbGwgcHJvdmlkZSBhIHN1bW1h cnkvcm9hZG1hcCBmb3IgdGhlIHJlbWFpbmluZyBleHBpcmVkIGRyYWZ0cyAobmVhciB0ZXJtIHBs YW4pDQotIEhhcmxhbi9EYW5ueSB3aWxsIGluc3VyZSB0aGF0IGh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIu aWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LW1heWVyLW50cC1tYWMtZXh0ZW5zaW9uLWZpZWxkLyBpcyBjb3Zl cmVkIHNvbWV3aGVyZQ0KDQo2LiBZQU5HIERhdGEgTW9kZWwgZm9yIE5UUA0KaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRh dHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtd3UtbnRwLW50cC1jZmcvDQotIElzc3VlIGEgd29y a2luZyBncm91cCBjYWxsIGZvciBhZG9wdGlvbi4NCg0KNy4gQU9CDQooYWN0dWFsbHkgZm9yIFRJ Q1RPQyBidXTigKYpIG5lZWQgdG8gZm9sbG93IHVwIG9uIDE1ODggRW50ZXJwcmlzZSBQcm9maWxl IGRyYWZ0IHN0YXR1cy4NCg0KOC4gTWlzc2VkIG9uIHRvZGF54oCZcyBhZ2VuZGE6DQpOVFAgTW9k ZSA2IENvbW1hbmRzDQpodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC1pZXRm LW50cC1tb2RlLTYtY21kcy8NCkJyaWFuOiBBcmUgd2UgcmVhZHkgZm9yIGEgV0dMQyBvbiB0aGlz IGRvY3VtZW50Pw0KDQoNCkF0dGVuZGFuY2UNCj09PT09PT09PQ0KS2FyZW4gT+KAmURvbm9naHVl DQpEaWV0ZXIgU2lib2xkDQpLcmlzdG9mIFRlaWNoZWwNCkRhdmUgTWlsbHMNCkRhbmllbCBGcmFu a2UNCkt5bGUgUm9zZQ0KTWlyb3NsYXYgTGljaHZhcg0KU2hhcm9uIEdvbGRiZXJnDQpBYW5jaGFs IE1hbGhvdHJhDQpZYWFrb3YgU3RlaW4NClN0ZXdhcnQgQnJ5YW50DQpUYWwgTWl6cmFoaQ0KUGV0 ZXIgTWV5ZXINClJvbmFuIEZsb29kDQpTY290dCBGbHVocmVyDQpIYXJsYW4gU3Rlbm4NClN1ZSBH cmF2ZXMNCkRhbm55IE1heWVyDQpSaWNoYXJkIFdlbHR5DQpEZW5pcyBSZWlsbHkNCkRocnV2IERo b2R5DQpBbmtpdCBLdW1hciBTaW5oYQ0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0K --_000_2FB890EA17EC4CA2AE6028A426FC38D2isocorg_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <3E8BB8C936211F479D621D36ED7B4572@namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWw+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIgY29udGVudD0i dGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjwvaGVhZD4NCjxib2R5IHN0eWxlPSJ3b3JkLXdy YXA6IGJyZWFrLXdvcmQ7IC13ZWJraXQtbmJzcC1tb2RlOiBzcGFjZTsgLXdlYmtpdC1saW5lLWJy ZWFrOiBhZnRlci13aGl0ZS1zcGFjZTsiIGNsYXNzPSIiPg0KRm9sa3MsDQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIi PjxiciBjbGFzcz0iIj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj5EaWV0ZXIgaGFzIGFncmVlZCB0 byBwcm9kdWNlIGEgc29tZXdoYXQgbW9yZSBjb21wcmVoZW5zaXZlIHNldCBvZiBtaW51dGVzIGZv ciB0aGUgbWVldGluZ3MuIEJlbG93IEkgYW0gY2FwdHVyaW5nIG15IHJlY29sbGVjdGlvbiBvZiB0 aGUga2V5IGFjdGlvbnMgYW5kIHRpbWVsaW5lcyBmb3Igc29tZSBvZiBvdXIgdmFyaW91cyBvbmdv aW5nIGVmZm9ydHMuIEnigJl2ZSBhbHNvIGxpc3RlZCBhdHRlbmRhbmNlIGZvciB0aGUgbWludXRl cw0KICh2aXJ0dWFsIGJsdWUgc2hlZXQpLiBBZGRpdGlvbnMgYW5kIGNvcnJlY3Rpb25zIHdlbGNv bWUuIFdlIGRpZCBtaXNzIG9uZSBpdGVtIG9uIHRoZSBhZ2VuZGEgdGhhdCBJIHJlbWVtYmVyZWQg YWZ0ZXIgdGhlIGNhbGwgKE5UUCBtb2RlIDYgY29tbWVudHMgZHJhZnQpLiBXZSB3aWxsIG5lZWQg dG8gZW5zdXJlIHdlIGRvbuKAmXQgZHJvcCBwcm9ncmVzc2lvbiBvZiB0aGF0IGRyYWZ0LiZuYnNw OzwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj48YnIgY2xhc3M9IiI+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9 IiI+VGhhbmtzIGV2ZXJ5b25lIGZvciBhIHByb2R1Y3RpdmUgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiB0b2RheS4mbmJz cDs8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+PGJyIGNsYXNzPSIiPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNz PSIiPlJlZ2FyZHMsPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPkthcmVuPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNz PSIiPjxiciBjbGFzcz0iIj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj48YnIgY2xhc3M9IiI+DQo8 L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+RHJhZnQgLSBLZXkgT3V0Y29tZXMvQWN0aW9ucyBmcm9tIDI1 IE1heSB2aXJ0dWFsIGludGVyaW0gbWVldGluZzwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj49PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PTwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBj bGFzcz0iIj4xLiBOVFMgZm9yIE5UUCBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uJm5ic3A7PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNs YXNzPSIiPjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LWll dGYtbnRwLXVzaW5nLW50cy1mb3ItbnRwLyIgY2xhc3M9IiI+aHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5p ZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1udHAtdXNpbmctbnRzLWZvci1udHAvPC9hPjwvZGl2Pg0K PGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj4tIERhbmllbCB0byBwdWJsaXNoIHVwZGF0ZSBieSAyNiBNYXkuJm5ic3A7 PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPi0gV0cgaGFzIHVudGlsIDMxIE1heSB0byBpbmRpY2F0ZSB0 aGF0IHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCBpcyBOT1QgcmVhZHkgZm9yIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgbGFzdCBjYWxs IChXR0xDKTwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj4tIElmIG5vIHN0cm9uZyBvcHBvc2l0aW9uLCBk b2N1bWVudCB3aWxsIGdvIHRvIFdHTEMgaW4gZWFybHkgSnVuZS4mbmJzcDs8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYg Y2xhc3M9IiI+LSBLcmlzdG9mIHdpbGwgd29yayBvbiB1cGRhdGluZyB0aGUgZ2VuZXJpYyBOVFMg ZG9jdW1lbnQgYnkgdGhlIGVuZCBvZiBKdW5lLiZuYnNwOzwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj48 YnIgY2xhc3M9IiI+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+Mi4gTlRQIEJDUDwvZGl2Pg0KPGRp diBjbGFzcz0iIj48YSBocmVmPSJodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFm dC1pZXRmLW50cC1iY3AvIiBjbGFzcz0iIj5odHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2Rv Yy9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLW50cC1iY3AvPC9hPjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj4tIFVwZGF0ZSBh ZGRyZXNzaW5nIGFsbCBXR0xDIGNvbW1lbnRzIGhhcyBiZWVuIHB1Ymxpc2hlZC4mbmJzcDs8L2Rp dj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+LSBXRyBoYXMgdW50aWwgMzEgTWF5IHRvIGluZGljYXRlIHRoYXQg dGhlIHVwZGF0ZWQgZG9jdW1lbnQgc2hvdWxkIE5PVCBiZSBmb3J3YXJkZWQgdG8gdGhlIElFU0cu Jm5ic3A7PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPi0gQ2hhaXJzIHdpbGwgZm9yd2FyZCB0byBJRVNH IGluIGVhcmx5IEp1bmUgaWYgdGhlcmUgaXMgbm8gc3Ryb25nIG9wcG9zaXRpb24uJm5ic3A7PC9k aXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPjxiciBjbGFzcz0iIj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj4z LiBOVFAgZGF0YSBtaW5pbWl6YXRpb24gZHJhZnQ8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+PGEgaHJl Zj0iaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtZGZyYW5rZS1udHAtZGF0 YS1taW5pbWl6YXRpb24vIiBjbGFzcz0iIj5odHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2Rv Yy9kcmFmdC1kZnJhbmtlLW50cC1kYXRhLW1pbmltaXphdGlvbi88L2E+PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNs YXNzPSIiPi0gQWRvcHRlZCBhcyBhIFdHIGRvY3VtZW50LCBEYW5pZWwgd2lsbCBwdWJsaXNoIGFz IGEgd2cgZG9jdW1lbnQgKEnigJl2ZSBhdXRob3JpemVkIGFzIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtbnRwLWRhdGEt bWluaW1pemF0aW9uKSZuYnNwOzwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj4tIFdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAg d2lsbCBoYXZlIGFib3V0IGEgbW9udGggdG8gcmV2aWV3LCBpZiBubyBtYWpvciBpc3N1ZXMgaWRl bnRpZmllZCB3aWxsIHByb2NlZWQgdG8gV0dMQyBpbiBlYXJseSBKdWx5LiZuYnNwOzwvZGl2Pg0K PGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj48YnIgY2xhc3M9IiI+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+NC4gTUFD IGFsZ29yaXRobSBmb3IgTlRQIChkZXByZWNhdGluZyBNRDUpPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIi PjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LWlldGYtbnRw LW1hYy8iIGNsYXNzPSIiPmh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LWll dGYtbnRwLW1hYy88L2E+PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPi0gRG9jdW1lbnQgaXMgc3RkcyB0 cmFjayB1cGRhdGluZyBSRkMgNTkwNTwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj4tIFdHIGhhcyB1bnRp bCAzMSBNYXkgdG8gaW5kaWNhdGUgdGhhdCB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgaXMgTk9UIHJlYWR5IGZvciB3 b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIGxhc3QgY2FsbCAoV0dMQyk8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+LSBJZiBu byBzdHJvbmcgb3Bwb3NpdGlvbiwgZG9jdW1lbnQgd2lsbCBnbyB0byBXR0xDIGluIGVhcmx5IEp1 bmUuJm5ic3A7PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPjxiciBjbGFzcz0iIj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRp diBjbGFzcz0iIj41LiBFeHRlbnNpb24gZmllbGQgYW5kIFJFRklEIGRyYWZ0czwvZGl2Pg0KPGRp diBjbGFzcz0iIj4tIG5lZWQgdG8gc2VwYXJhdGUgY2xhcmlmaWNhdGlvbnMvY29ycmVjdGlvbnMg b24gZXhpc3RpbmcgZG9jdW1lbnRhdGlvbiBmcm9tIG5ldyBkb2N1bWVudGF0aW9uPC9kaXY+DQo8 ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPi0gSGFybGFuL1NoYXJvbiB3aWxsIHJlcHVibGlzaCA8YSBocmVmPSJodHRw czovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLW50cC1yZWZpZC11cGRhdGVz LyIgY2xhc3M9IiI+DQpodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC1pZXRm LW50cC1yZWZpZC11cGRhdGVzLzwvYT48L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+LSBIYXJsYW4gd2ls bCBwcm92aWRlIGEgc3VtbWFyeS9yb2FkbWFwIGZvciB0aGUgcmVtYWluaW5nIGV4cGlyZWQgZHJh ZnRzIChuZWFyIHRlcm0gcGxhbik8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+LSBIYXJsYW4vRGFubnkg d2lsbCBpbnN1cmUgdGhhdCA8YSBocmVmPSJodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2Rv Yy9kcmFmdC1tYXllci1udHAtbWFjLWV4dGVuc2lvbi1maWVsZC8iIGNsYXNzPSIiPg0KaHR0cHM6 Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtbWF5ZXItbnRwLW1hYy1leHRlbnNpb24t ZmllbGQvPC9hPiZuYnNwO2lzIGNvdmVyZWQgc29tZXdoZXJlJm5ic3A7PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNs YXNzPSIiPjxiciBjbGFzcz0iIj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj42LiBZQU5HIERhdGEg TW9kZWwgZm9yIE5UUDwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj48YSBocmVmPSJodHRwczovL2RhdGF0 cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC13dS1udHAtbnRwLWNmZy8iIGNsYXNzPSIiPmh0dHBz Oi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LXd1LW50cC1udHAtY2ZnLzwvYT48L2Rp dj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+LSBJc3N1ZSBhIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgY2FsbCBmb3IgYWRvcHRp b24uJm5ic3A7PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPjxiciBjbGFzcz0iIj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRp diBjbGFzcz0iIj43LiBBT0ImbmJzcDs8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+KGFjdHVhbGx5IGZv ciBUSUNUT0MgYnV04oCmKSBuZWVkIHRvIGZvbGxvdyB1cCBvbiAxNTg4IEVudGVycHJpc2UgUHJv ZmlsZSBkcmFmdCBzdGF0dXMuJm5ic3A7PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPjxiciBjbGFzcz0i Ij4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj44LiBNaXNzZWQgb24gdG9kYXnigJlzIGFnZW5kYTom bmJzcDs8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+TlRQIE1vZGUgNiBDb21tYW5kczwvZGl2Pg0KPGRp diBjbGFzcz0iIj48YSBocmVmPSJodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFm dC1pZXRmLW50cC1tb2RlLTYtY21kcy8iIGNsYXNzPSIiPmh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0 Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LWlldGYtbnRwLW1vZGUtNi1jbWRzLzwvYT48L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xh c3M9IiI+QnJpYW46IEFyZSB3ZSByZWFkeSBmb3IgYSBXR0xDIG9uIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQ/Jm5i c3A7PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPjxiciBjbGFzcz0iIj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFz cz0iIj48YnIgY2xhc3M9IiI+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+QXR0ZW5kYW5jZTwvZGl2 Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj49PT09PT09PT08L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+S2FyZW4gT+KA mURvbm9naHVlPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPkRpZXRlciBTaWJvbGQ8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYg Y2xhc3M9IiI+S3Jpc3RvZiBUZWljaGVsPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPkRhdmUgTWlsbHM8 L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+RGFuaWVsIEZyYW5rZTwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj5L eWxlIFJvc2U8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+TWlyb3NsYXYgTGljaHZhcjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRp diBjbGFzcz0iIj5TaGFyb24gR29sZGJlcmc8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+QWFuY2hhbCBN YWxob3RyYTwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj5ZYWFrb3YgU3RlaW48L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xh c3M9IiI+U3Rld2FydCBCcnlhbnQ8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+VGFsIE1penJhaGk8L2Rp dj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+UGV0ZXIgTWV5ZXI8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+Um9uYW4g Rmxvb2Q8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+U2NvdHQgRmx1aHJlcjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFz cz0iIj5IYXJsYW4gU3Rlbm48L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+U3VlIEdyYXZlczwvZGl2Pg0K PGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj5EYW5ueSBNYXllcjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj5SaWNoYXJkIFdl bHR5PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPkRlbmlzIFJlaWxseTwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0i Ij5EaHJ1diBEaG9keTwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj5BbmtpdCBLdW1hciBTaW5oYSZuYnNw OzwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj48YnIgY2xhc3M9IiI+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9 IiI+PGJyIGNsYXNzPSIiPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPjxiciBjbGFzcz0iIj4NCjwv ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj48YnIgY2xhc3M9IiI+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+ PGJyIGNsYXNzPSIiPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPjxiciBjbGFzcz0iIj4NCjwvZGl2 Pg0KPC9ib2R5Pg0KPC9odG1sPg0K --_000_2FB890EA17EC4CA2AE6028A426FC38D2isocorg_-- --===============8553934063455738706== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg --===============8553934063455738706==-- From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Thu May 25 11:08:42 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 761B5124217 for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:08:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.09 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com 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 4M3z1Hz1FxhM for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:08:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0277B127B73 for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:08:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFF5986DC0B for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 18:08:38 +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 62F7A86DB46 for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 18:08:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wm0-f50.google.com ([74.125.82.50]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1dDxBU-0009dr-CA for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Thu, 25 May 2017 18:08:35 +0000 Received: by mail-wm0-f50.google.com with SMTP id 7so101292229wmo.1 for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:08:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mcPqn2rN6Zb7RFY0l/kYl4RSKbqIwdxlgjuaxqs+LgY=; b=Y79iDnKey6ifAoFu7047SAcOFjTGTjUKD6w0LLO5lECEkZjViiCM0S+B9Gb8/H2nur Graop13OCxMMVlVW+RI4sKF6Eu7gGHp8w6MfBm8iQ/sGnONi4SpG1LayorpYSOwHfb0n vSoCZcri5xHJ8yfW8iWERZVMTrSCuDxGdROPtUZLmd5eLvqrGlAdnc3w8nEVa0Dg7hCR so9iQbNQ1qTeycJVNuvX6pwuOaV+rCK4TzbMN27EinCOs7wQPAGo0fvresQBWnWfuecz UJJpF09jHXm/pXTf7LLhlELIdaMJB1zRlTYhJ8NPnfih15FtwyYV0DUw/FfG9SS0/7ds DEVA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mcPqn2rN6Zb7RFY0l/kYl4RSKbqIwdxlgjuaxqs+LgY=; b=W6JgWoLScyPaZU/+5vW89c9xsGQOef0Ankgau1k4Di5kzmHL6ZsewALg9Oub1auYO6 sed+HTI4pGU5UR2wrIN+kkEeouF80lCvBchGa22WMQybsgmiV7FCyolIuw1T/3noBO8Q xHY9jUiefCeebI9hXdv40qoG4ROQOgGfaSrufDjAV3qmCR+JjJ58UNv1dgjgprw8gEGi OfeUzuOi06rTErWhs5YCFL0RGIiKgrJbV2ilMOe0hYqfebwL+2bxUNH5+vTBO8T6ECj3 QBZWUcb1jQHixhA9zouhhiM+8rPX6d2irORkqyKSL1/lKsyklEzGdPTS8Yg2+3m/OXGY dpBg== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCROP/5tfsab6sTBc/aMdP+MTui8FSetb/JaYfO9C1IH+x3jc+E fQYjP2xMGJczesLjIgvTkqgoak+hWg== X-Received: by 10.80.184.129 with SMTP id l1mr28653649ede.88.1495735707110; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:08:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.140.67 with HTTP; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.80.140.67 with HTTP; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:08:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6DD5264D-E9CD-474D-ABFD-2E2B18BBEBAE@isoc.org> References: <6DD5264D-E9CD-474D-ABFD-2E2B18BBEBAE@isoc.org> From: Daniel Franke Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 14:08:26 -0400 Message-ID: To: "Karen O'Donoghue" X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 74.125.82.50 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: dfoxfranke@gmail.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] call for adoption for draft-wu-ntp-ntp-cfg (as NTP YANG Data Model) 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 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3815256619778123129==" Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" --===============3815256619778123129== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045c91fe8012de05505d1bfd" --f403045c91fe8012de05505d1bfd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I have reviewed the document and have no objection to its adoption. On May 25, 2017 2:03 PM, "Karen O'Donoghue" wrote: > Folks, > > Is anyone opposed to the adoption of > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wu-ntp-ntp-cfg/ > as an NTP working group document? > > I proposed that the draft filename be renamed as "draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model" > if adopted. > > Regards, > Karen > > > _______________________________________________ > ntpwg mailing list > ntpwg@lists.ntp.org > http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg > --f403045c91fe8012de05505d1bfd Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have reviewed the document and have no objection to its= adoption.

O= n May 25, 2017 2:03 PM, "Karen O'Donoghue" <odonoghue@isoc.org> wrote:

_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg
--f403045c91fe8012de05505d1bfd-- --===============3815256619778123129== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg --===============3815256619778123129==-- From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Fri May 26 09:09:23 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 B2A9312EA94 for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 09:09:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 3FBdvwlwnwVf for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 09:09:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6BD2129B00 for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 09:09:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BC6B86DB4C for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 16:09:17 +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 9369F86D83B for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 16:09:13 +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 1dEHnV-0008Tt-Nt for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Fri, 26 May 2017 16:09:13 +0000 Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2EC5129AD3; Fri, 26 May 2017 09:09:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.51.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <149581494489.8604.11087762578524589068@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 09:09:04 -0700 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-data-minimization-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 : NTP Client Data Minimization Authors : Daniel Fox Franke Aanchal Malhotra Filename : draft-ietf-ntp-data-minimization-00.txt Pages : 5 Date : 2017-05-26 Abstract: This memo proposes backward-compatible updates to the Network Time Protocol to strip unnecessary identifying information from client requests and to improve resilience against blind spoofing of unauthenticated server responses. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-data-minimization/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp-data-minimization-00 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ntp-data-minimization-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 Fri May 26 10:49:20 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 A9588129B05 for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 10:49:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.089 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.089 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com 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 l5i42L93SQD3 for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 10:49:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C855B129AEB for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 10:49:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E8BE86DBD9 for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 17:49:18 +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 A134186D83B for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 17:49:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-it0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1dEJMJ-000BzQ-M6 for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Fri, 26 May 2017 17:49:14 +0000 Received: by mail-it0-f46.google.com with SMTP id a10so3304157itg.1 for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 10:49:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=d63nnkMuqLl0xcbjmCLcPvG8ZiZChnNHZG9hHqFVqOU=; b=PLY+ddE+fhkDr6w6GHK8qhQmuEBpyebRe/8rI2FbVWKyHyWlX9s27JIRGpfdPFEv4j ZmaFJX6Utv2OEPty0HUKb3gxQCIfM/LwGNxpzBl4c3ZLaMC6XMWyDJ4Ins3yMSwTf5xA uaWBUlNT002FIGDXAvDI50zGQraX57Svb7rvEVNHVmffRze8oiv6rUe3aw9Gk1W7H8pz z7kSIR18wAFqkSNFyeIYLyu62n7DyZ3LBgg0erHLuEluTv7DMbIOA9PrH53l8bQnvckf Cf9p1jMKu6Dy4DpjNVDJbLzXDU3z5FbjY1D5KNRbL4DX1Dm9dCe++6jZIkADyNU2TdrE Y1ww== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=d63nnkMuqLl0xcbjmCLcPvG8ZiZChnNHZG9hHqFVqOU=; b=JNtlMonPHxag3q8zACKpYFlOxjzETa8ZsI2nSw+WZDZbuON1oQzAhj9d+D+mpNJKTW 6Dtn58QVB41Ml/zpZAScDCWnV1pcuY/UQ2sDrd7WWyqDPSQ6UtDJTxJhJCKdF2A/D0UD FtRku3omftfs+yKkh4vYTwa1jNVMNMEQVY7Ayavsa3LHqzjcdFtWsaEZYQvqPInebZWd 43uHDbc45APtxVwatVDG+YEXgAiZbT4DwfFDyKCvtpZ35oHiwQjPIttlHJ4qyNF7D18D 6cj0OhbnK6OB3c5rP+ir5lbmrlKQ2syvCA2jM5gOlV3q2RnTsPC0SPZmwtusl+StSnem TQUg== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAQlBSWo4fzv32kb2cndPlYpCffyVHdhUHATxFzRSqT8m4D9j+x YnFilXIQN5SI5NbKSEppdGZTob2GAoD3X0I= X-Received: by 10.36.74.82 with SMTP id k79mr19980087itb.67.1495820946896; Fri, 26 May 2017 10:49:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.57.212 with HTTP; Fri, 26 May 2017 10:48:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Sharon Goldberg Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 13:48:26 -0400 Message-ID: To: Denis Reilly X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.214.46 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: sharon.goldbe@gmail.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] New version of BCP 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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4218325978500212512==" Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" --===============4218325978500212512== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1144e0542ffee8055070f4cf" --001a1144e0542ffee8055070f4cf Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Comments on the BCP: Modification to last paragraph of 6.4. Starting with ntp-4.2.8p7 the ntp.keys file accepts an optional 4th column, a comma-separated list of IPs that are allowed to serve time. Use this feature. Note, however, that an adversarial client that knows the symmetric broadcast key could still easily spoof its source IP to an IP that is allowed to serve time. (This is easy to do because the origin timestamp on broadcast mode packets is not validated by the client. By contrast, client/server and symmetric modes do require origin timestamp validation, making it more difficult to spoof packets [CCR16].) Modification to Section 7.2 (add the middle paragraph, as below). The "Kiss-o'-Death" (KoD) packet is a rate limiting mechanism where a server can tell a misbehaving client to "back off" its query rate. It is important for all NTP devices to respect these packets and back off when asked to do so by a server. It is even more important for an embedded device, which may not have exposed a control interface for NTP. That said, a client should only accept a KoD packet if it has a valid origin timestamp. Also, clients should be wary of accepting KoD packet with large poll values (>10), which can cause a denial-of-service attack that causes the client to stop querying its server [NDSS16]. Clients should monitor their NTP instance to detect suspicious KoD packets. The KoD mechanism relies on clients behaving properly in order to be effective. Some clients ignore the KoD packet entirely, and other poorly-implemented clients might unintentionally increase their poll rate and simulate a denial of service attack. Server administrators should be prepared for this and take measures outside of the NTP protocol to drop packets from misbehaving clients. On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Denis Reilly wrote: > Hello, everyone. I have uploaded a new version (v04) of the NTP BCP ahead > of our interim meeting later this week, based on the WGLC feedback. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ntp-bcp-04 > > > There are general changes for readability, as well as more substantial > changes to the "sources of time", "leap seconds", "autokey", "avoiding > daemon restart attacks", and "anycast". > > Best Regards, > > -- > Denis Reilly | Lead Engineer | denis.reilly@spectracom.orolia.com > (585)321-5837 > > _______________________________________________ > ntpwg mailing list > ntpwg@lists.ntp.org > http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg > > -- --- Sharon Goldberg Computer Science, Boston University http://www.cs.bu.edu/~goldbe --001a1144e0542ffee8055070f4cf Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Comments on the BCP:


Modification to last paragraph of 6.4.

Sta= rting with ntp-4.2.8p7 the ntp.keys file accepts an optional 4th column, a = comma-separated list of IPs that are allowed to serve time. Use this featur= e.=C2=A0 Note, however, that an adversarial client that knows the symmetric= broadcast key could still easily spoof its source IP to an IP that is allo= wed to serve time. (This is easy to do because the origin timestamp on broa= dcast mode packets is not validated by the client. By contrast, client/serv= er and symmetric modes do require origin timestamp validation, making it mo= re difficult to spoof packets [CCR16].)

Modificati= on to Section 7.2 (add the middle paragraph, as below).

=C2=A0 =C2=A0The "Kiss-o'-Death" (KoD) packet is a rate= limiting mechanism where a
=C2=A0 =C2=A0server can tell a misbeh= aving client to "back off" its query rate.
=C2=A0 =C2= =A0It is important for all NTP devices to respect these packets and back
=C2=A0 =C2=A0off when asked to do so by a server.=C2=A0 It is even = more important for
=C2=A0 =C2=A0an embedded device, which may not= have exposed a control interface
=C2=A0 =C2=A0for NTP.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0That said, a client should only accep= t a KoD packet if it has a valid=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0origin timest= amp.=C2=A0 Also, clients should be wary of accepting KoD packet
= =C2=A0 =C2=A0with large poll values (>10), which can cause a denial-of-s= ervice
=C2=A0 =C2=A0attack that causes the client to stop queryin= g its server=C2=A0[NDSS16].=C2=A0 Clients=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0should monitor their NTP ins= tance to detect suspicious KoD packets.

=C2=A0 =C2= =A0The KoD mechanism relies on clients behaving properly in order to be
=C2=A0 =C2=A0effective.=C2=A0 Some clients ignore the KoD packet ent= irely, and other
=C2=A0 =C2=A0poorly-implemented clients might un= intentionally increase their poll
=C2=A0 =C2=A0rate and simulate = a denial of service attack.=C2=A0 Server administrators
=C2=A0 = =C2=A0should be prepared for this and take measures outside of the NTP
=C2=A0 =C2=A0protocol to drop packets from misbehaving clients.=C2=A0=

On Mon, May= 22, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Denis Reilly <denis.reilly@spectrac= om.orolia.com> wrote:
Hello, everyone. I have uploaded a new version (v04)=C2= =A0 of the NTP BCP ahead of our interim meeting later this week, based on t= he WGLC feedback.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/htm= l/draft-ietf-ntp-bcp-04


There are general changes for readability, as well as more substantial chan= ges to the "sources of time", "leap seconds", "aut= okey", "avoiding daemon restart attacks", and "anycast&= quot;.

Best Regards,

--
Denis Reilly=C2=A0 |=C2=A0 Lead Engineer=C2=A0 |=C2=A0 denis.reilly@spectracom= .orolia.com (585)321-5837

_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
ntpwg@lists.ntp.or= g
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg




--
---
Sharon Goldberg
C= omputer Science, Boston University
http://www.cs.bu.edu/~goldbe
--001a1144e0542ffee8055070f4cf-- --===============4218325978500212512== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg --===============4218325978500212512==-- From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Fri May 26 13:24:24 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 8774C129449 for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 13:24:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.29 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=krose.org 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 FQzJmxraNW8f for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 13:24:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6066127A90 for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 13:24:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A3E486DBD6 for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 20:24:21 +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 6451486D83B for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 20:24:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qk0-f177.google.com ([209.85.220.177]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1dELmL-000Hr2-UI for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Fri, 26 May 2017 20:24:17 +0000 Received: by mail-qk0-f177.google.com with SMTP id u75so15829059qka.3 for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=krose.org; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=WdqFvvYfCHvlu2bNNi4ahfQuuNsdH56K5GVdeJWadAE=; b=V2/vycLxUZiOlgXSYsH+OEQANk+kcOpII7pkObhQLOIaWIg7FFI8rqY3Mc1M+YS5hf fgMiByUHuN4o/bKJU1i+vMUlQL/d2iGRdT1aO60RvltDs9WG5RABJwRR8toKyehzV6CH hsKOzXrPbpdNBIMwUeeRjqzZeYHtCEy9PdCGg= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=WdqFvvYfCHvlu2bNNi4ahfQuuNsdH56K5GVdeJWadAE=; b=MRyaEo6tFeIErDIQT8L10eGK7HnrRkbS7C+o9tPvVGUPFsvnng3QkCRB0OaB3YgjCU Ph4j6bLSoyJznTX8pw98xZ/ySNm3FkCxKbg9Rp+iMaAyt6z9vB09Kr/M9mSukC8pU2UU SRu2pZzEFD98IPjV8cza5MonuRHaJ0WeIQVlZw6/ks+klRkaeTscAJa7QDkvFKNRHxcP QB3b7zrh7PAbjWLxjAgR1GbL5T3qoevhABFYIdHkM/cOFyqUZUtqc9RfIWc91nI3bqNP +9X9n3j/PIaU9Cg+mCsPF7iMWmndUrB5bAjzfPjGdD8QKsGwJXyE8yFfK9BJbf7om+eg zS4Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcBAFprbDvEIsFaRYeHWS30K9DyOMu7cKJSrvTVcc8aG1oCF5EYD OQepIyeYej98xQHO28Z17PNYZS86ct7QD5HMnA== X-Received: by 10.55.215.66 with SMTP id m63mr4370447qki.107.1495830248916; Fri, 26 May 2017 13:24:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.55.93.193 with HTTP; Fri, 26 May 2017 13:24:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [2001:470:1f07:121:922b:34ff:fe5d:efa3] From: Kyle Rose Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 16:24:08 -0400 Message-ID: To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.220.177 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: krose@krose.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: [ntpwg] More on poll interval 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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6323698549239636384==" Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" --===============6323698549239636384== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1149dd64a1bf620550731e55" --001a1149dd64a1bf620550731e55 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp-data-minimization-00 =C2=A74.1 =C2=B63: q( Putting accurate information into this field has no s= ignificant impact on privacy since an observer can already obtain this information simply by observing the actual interval between requests. ) Sure, if the observer can already assign requests accurately to clients. But if a client strictly follows the polling interval, isn't its inclusion of the poll interval here mostly equivalent to its including the previous response time in the receive timestamp field? ("Mostly" because it clearly isn't true if packets are lost, for instance.) Seems like both would enable the same kind of client tracking. Kyle --001a1149dd64a1bf620550731e55 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=C2=A74.1 =C2=B63: q( Putting accura= te information into this field has no significant impact on privacy since a= n observer can already obtain this information simply by observing the actu= al interval between requests. )

Sure, if the observer can alre= ady assign requests accurately to clients. But if a client strictly follows= the polling interval, isn't its inclusion of the poll interval here mo= stly equivalent to its including the previous response time in the receive = timestamp field? ("Mostly" because it clearly isn't true if p= ackets are lost, for instance.) Seems like both would enable the same kind = of client tracking.

Kyle
--001a1149dd64a1bf620550731e55-- --===============6323698549239636384== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg --===============6323698549239636384==-- From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Fri May 26 16:40:28 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 9ACC6127B52 for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 16:40:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 zk-F_56xqlWS for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 16:40:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A53C126DCA for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 16:40:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE71786DBC3 for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 23:40:26 +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 BD91586D83B for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 23:40:22 +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 1dEOq6-000OeA-Kp for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Fri, 26 May 2017 23:40:22 +0000 Received: from hms-mbp11.pfcs.com (96-41-177-107.dhcp.mdfd.or.charter.com [96.41.177.107]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by chessie.everett.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4ED15B881; Fri, 26 May 2017 23:40:13 +0000 (UTC) To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org References: From: Harlan Stenn Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 16:40:12 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US 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] More on poll interval 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="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" CgpPbiA1LzI2LzE3IDE6MjQgUE0sIEt5bGUgUm9zZSB3cm90ZToKPiBodHRwczovL3Rvb2xzLmll dGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1udHAtZGF0YS1taW5pbWl6YXRpb24tMDAKPiAKPiDCpzQu MSDCtjM6IHEoIFB1dHRpbmcgYWNjdXJhdGUgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gaW50byB0aGlzIGZpZWxkIGhh cyBubyBzaWduaWZpY2FudAo+IGltcGFjdCBvbiBwcml2YWN5IHNpbmNlIGFuIG9ic2VydmVyIGNh biBhbHJlYWR5IG9idGFpbiB0aGlzIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uCj4gc2ltcGx5IGJ5IG9ic2VydmluZyB0 aGUgYWN0dWFsIGludGVydmFsIGJldHdlZW4gcmVxdWVzdHMuICkKPiAKPiBTdXJlLCBpZiB0aGUg b2JzZXJ2ZXIgY2FuIGFscmVhZHkgYXNzaWduIHJlcXVlc3RzIGFjY3VyYXRlbHkgdG8gY2xpZW50 cy4KPiBCdXQgaWYgYSBjbGllbnQgc3RyaWN0bHkgZm9sbG93cyB0aGUgcG9sbGluZyBpbnRlcnZh bCwgaXNuJ3QgaXRzIGluY2x1c2lvbgo+IG9mIHRoZSBwb2xsIGludGVydmFsIGhlcmUgbW9zdGx5 IGVxdWl2YWxlbnQgdG8gaXRzIGluY2x1ZGluZyB0aGUgcHJldmlvdXMKPiByZXNwb25zZSB0aW1l IGluIHRoZSByZWNlaXZlIHRpbWVzdGFtcCBmaWVsZD8gKCJNb3N0bHkiIGJlY2F1c2UgaXQgY2xl YXJseQo+IGlzbid0IHRydWUgaWYgcGFja2V0cyBhcmUgbG9zdCwgZm9yIGluc3RhbmNlLikgU2Vl bXMgbGlrZSBib3RoIHdvdWxkIGVuYWJsZQo+IHRoZSBzYW1lIGtpbmQgb2YgY2xpZW50IHRyYWNr aW5nLgo+IAo+IEt5bGUKCkZvbGtzIGFyZSBwbGF5aW5nIHdpdGggYSBkb3VibGUtZWRnZWQgc3dv cmQgaGVyZS4KCkluIGFuIG9uZ29pbmcgYXNzb2NpYXRpb24sIHRoZSBpbml0aWF0aW5nIHNpZGUg aXMgbGV0dGluZyB0aGUgb3RoZXIgc2lkZQprbm93IHdoZW4gaXQgZXhwZWN0cyB0byBzZW5kIHRo ZSBuZXh0IHBhY2tldC4gIFRoaXMgaXMgdXNlZnVsIHNvIHRoZQpvdGhlciBzaWRlIGNhbiBkbyBh ICJnYXRlIiBjaGVjay4gIExpa2V3aXNlLCB0aGUgb3RoZXIgc2lkZSBtaWdodCBrbm93CnNvbWV0 aGluZyB0aGUgaW5pdGlhdGluZyBzaWRlIGRvZXMgbm90LCBhbmQgaXQgY2FuIHNlbmQgYmFjayBh IGRpZmZlcmVudApwb2xsIGludGVydmFsIGFzIGEgc3VnZ2VzdGlvbighKSB0byB0aGUgaW5pdGlh dG9yIHRoYXQgaXQgYWx0ZXIgaXRzIHBvbGwKaW50ZXJ2YWwuCgpBbSBJIGJlaW5nIHRvbyBzdWJ0 bGU/CgotLSAKSGFybGFuIFN0ZW5uIDxzdGVubkBud3RpbWUub3JnPgpodHRwOi8vbmV0d29ya3Rp bWVmb3VuZGF0aW9uLm9yZyAtIGJlIGEgbWVtYmVyIQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXwpudHB3ZyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QKbnRwd2dAbGlzdHMubnRw Lm9yZwpodHRwOi8vbGlzdHMubnRwLm9yZy9saXN0aW5mby9udHB3Zw== From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Fri May 26 17:11:09 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 3CD41129B82 for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 17:11:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 ht3uKffn8wYP for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 17:11:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64917128792 for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 17:11:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A99DA86DBC1 for ; Sat, 27 May 2017 00:11:06 +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 2212486D83B for ; Sat, 27 May 2017 00:11:03 +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 1dEPJn-000PnK-Eb for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Sat, 27 May 2017 00:11:03 +0000 Received: from hms-mbp11.pfcs.com (96-41-177-107.dhcp.mdfd.or.charter.com [96.41.177.107]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by chessie.everett.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E46DB843; Sat, 27 May 2017 00:10:54 +0000 (UTC) To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org References: From: Harlan Stenn Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 17:10:53 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US 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 of BCP 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" On 5/26/17 10:48 AM, Sharon Goldberg wrote: > Comments on the BCP: > > > Modification to last paragraph of 6.4. > > Starting with ntp-4.2.8p7 the ntp.keys file accepts an optional 4th column, > a comma-separated list of IPs that are allowed to serve time. Use this > feature. Note, however, that an adversarial client that knows the > symmetric broadcast key could still easily spoof its source IP to an IP > that is allowed to serve time. (This is easy to do because the origin > timestamp on broadcast mode packets is not validated by the client. By > contrast, client/server and symmetric modes do require origin timestamp > validation, making it more difficult to spoof packets [CCR16].) If we're going down this road, then let's add that in a LAN setting doing this will cause ARP warnings as the IP moves from one MAC to another. It also means there is an attacker *on your network*. If this isn't the case, then it's highly likely you're not doing proper ingress filtering. Perhaps we should say that this is a risk of using broadcast in a WAN setting? Oh wait, we already clearly and repeatedly state that broadcast time is only to be used in trusted networks. > Modification to Section 7.2 (add the middle paragraph, as below). > > The "Kiss-o'-Death" (KoD) packet is a rate limiting mechanism where a > server can tell a misbehaving client to "back off" its query rate. > It is important for all NTP devices to respect these packets and back > off when asked to do so by a server. It is even more important for > an embedded device, which may not have exposed a control interface > for NTP. > > That said, a client should only accept a KoD packet if it has a valid > origin timestamp. Also, clients should be wary of accepting KoD packet > with large poll values (>10), which can cause a denial-of-service > attack that causes the client to stop querying its server [NDSS16]. > Clients > should monitor their NTP instance to detect suspicious KoD packets. > > The KoD mechanism relies on clients behaving properly in order to be > effective. Some clients ignore the KoD packet entirely, and other > poorly-implemented clients might unintentionally increase their poll > rate and simulate a denial of service attack. Server administrators > should be prepared for this and take measures outside of the NTP > protocol to drop packets from misbehaving clients. So this document is also a BCP for implementors? Makes sense, I guess, but I thought this check was already specified in 5905. > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Denis Reilly orolia.com> wrote: > >> Hello, everyone. I have uploaded a new version (v04) of the NTP BCP ahead >> of our interim meeting later this week, based on the WGLC feedback. >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ntp-bcp-04 >> >> >> There are general changes for readability, as well as more substantial >> changes to the "sources of time", "leap seconds", "autokey", "avoiding >> daemon restart attacks", and "anycast". >> >> Best Regards, >> >> -- >> Denis Reilly | Lead Engineer | denis.reilly@spectracom.orolia.com >> (585)321-5837 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- 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 Sun May 28 22:34:10 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 14EA712741D for ; Sun, 28 May 2017 22:34:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.798 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 7XRIqZ5xyX38 for ; Sun, 28 May 2017 22:34:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B333312009C for ; Sun, 28 May 2017 22:34:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7D3E86DB9B for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 05:34:06 +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 0369986D831 for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 05:34:03 +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 1dFDJT-000Fz0-12 for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Mon, 29 May 2017 05:34:02 +0000 Received: from rrzmta2.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 02F5773190 for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 07:33:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.5.51]) by rrzmta2.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60DCD735DA for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 07:33:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 29 May 2017 07:33:52 +0200 Message-Id: <592BB2BE020000A1000268C1@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 14.2.2 Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 07:33:50 +0200 From: "Ulrich Windl" To: "Sharon Goldberg" References: In-Reply-To: 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: New version of BCP 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" >>> Sharon Goldberg schrieb am 26.05.2017 um 19:48 in Nachricht : > Comments on the BCP: > > > Modification to last paragraph of 6.4. > > Starting with ntp-4.2.8p7 the ntp.keys file accepts an optional 4th column, > a comma-separated list of IPs that are allowed to serve time. Use this > feature. Note, however, that an adversarial client that knows the > symmetric broadcast key could still easily spoof its source IP to an IP > that is allowed to serve time. (This is easy to do because the origin > timestamp on broadcast mode packets is not validated by the client. By I wonder: What is the benefit over restrict? If the purpose is to restrict the use of a specific key in addition to the restrictions effective, wouldn't the "restrict" keyword the proper place to do it? Also, while autokey is deprecated there is not substitute for it. How would that play with autokey? Not at all, I guess. > contrast, client/server and symmetric modes do require origin timestamp > validation, making it more difficult to spoof packets [CCR16].) > > Modification to Section 7.2 (add the middle paragraph, as below). > > The "Kiss-o'-Death" (KoD) packet is a rate limiting mechanism where a > server can tell a misbehaving client to "back off" its query rate. > It is important for all NTP devices to respect these packets and back > off when asked to do so by a server. It is even more important for > an embedded device, which may not have exposed a control interface > for NTP. > > That said, a client should only accept a KoD packet if it has a valid > origin timestamp. Also, clients should be wary of accepting KoD packet > with large poll values (>10), which can cause a denial-of-service > attack that causes the client to stop querying its server [NDSS16]. > Clients > should monitor their NTP instance to detect suspicious KoD packets. The above statement and the statement below are somewhat contradicting: Obove says that "poll > 10" and KoD will cause a denial of service, while the below statement says som porly implemented clients could treat KoD like a denial of service. At least some explaing words are necessary IMHO. I.e.: Be specific "what "poorly-implemented" means. Regards, Ulrich > > The KoD mechanism relies on clients behaving properly in order to be > effective. Some clients ignore the KoD packet entirely, and other > poorly-implemented clients might unintentionally increase their poll > rate and simulate a denial of service attack. Server administrators > should be prepared for this and take measures outside of the NTP > protocol to drop packets from misbehaving clients. > > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Denis Reilly orolia.com> wrote: > >> Hello, everyone. I have uploaded a new version (v04) of the NTP BCP ahead >> of our interim meeting later this week, based on the WGLC feedback. >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ntp-bcp-04 >> >> >> There are general changes for readability, as well as more substantial >> changes to the "sources of time", "leap seconds", "autokey", "avoiding >> daemon restart attacks", and "anycast". >> >> Best Regards, >> >> -- >> Denis Reilly | Lead Engineer | denis.reilly@spectracom.orolia.com >> (585)321-5837 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ntpwg mailing list >> ntpwg@lists.ntp.org >> http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg >> >> > > > -- > --- > Sharon Goldberg > Computer Science, Boston University > http://www.cs.bu.edu/~goldbe _______________________________________________ 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 May 29 08:10:38 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 CE321127180 for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 08:10:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.09 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com 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 BigQdzrrWrlK for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 08:10:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62782126B6D for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 08:10:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A73C386DB9D for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 15:10:36 +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 9CC0386DAB6 for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 15:10:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io0-f169.google.com ([209.85.223.169]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1dFMJO-000FFn-Bp for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Mon, 29 May 2017 15:10:33 +0000 Received: by mail-io0-f169.google.com with SMTP id o12so42539686iod.3 for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 08:10:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=c09FS+3n7usLi3qeJEAEXZ5jiGMOz2Ciu0qZJVV0Eps=; b=nJr5gFhkdTPfDTUy3nYB2CjePTgvYb+ALdPbTaJCOeJPYSNma+GW3ZsiVRKytBUay4 zEZf5BWPB8CzIJLWeidYdvj0D0Kn0k/Klzu9F+OFA0uygQ5l1UChyAEij13dSe8i6mAf g+/AWzTc/9JRwABlS7nO2TQwWmITtpKu+lPMQCWsIMrpW8hmdkmwipl49gPuYaHxyAtT dCzuL90JePxmgxXDjYJy5Tao9mMUfOE9dZfWql9qA0gzk8TXMYA2a4AlBTGjuESZ2aaZ Isnz9AinyTMLS0POnQN74zI/VmcwJ6T+v/yRoYsUcgW+3uVd8ZHezuHc2/HgjgAbIle/ tr+Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=c09FS+3n7usLi3qeJEAEXZ5jiGMOz2Ciu0qZJVV0Eps=; b=YUO/U14vr5ttU/JewaU/nC+WHNYdhw0xLhVtGgrPzaidnBfXZWnSjfiv+kYNYXttcC 2jX+mR0pY2Vds5ZiYHLc1CWRsfv8Tr8tn/xNIB9RA1jQ4PNFUmxUc8QgtUhwVb2zt7ps tcvDYgwbcvjTkuc1BbRuNdzdgYZNVOiyGBGA3zf5kUsKZeFB6bgZdtbi14gGfOV3d0pc gII7gwme5PJE57YjQfS3QkhYFf+9O4JpMst0XFpZrBR5ohfxbNe2y24a6IA6JW1IOBya vGejtVNxIrYMaCpkLPD9pdbDu2dl5kTh+w203WOK4heOmc6m8AF/x11OIlizvaMTfy/M 3tHw== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDF2QzG7k33QkypWQFlCGTZctmEW7e9W0vB11CyFc7B3G4eYChq TIyjbvoXIEZ5aShuCPNu9MaxU/zaTg== X-Received: by 10.107.3.80 with SMTP id 77mr14090152iod.231.1496070625449; Mon, 29 May 2017 08:10:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.57.212 with HTTP; Mon, 29 May 2017 08:10:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <592BB2BE020000A1000268C1@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> References: <592BB2BE020000A1000268C1@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> From: Sharon Goldberg Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 11:10:24 -0400 Message-ID: To: Ulrich Windl X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.223.169 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: sharon.goldbe@gmail.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] New version of BCP 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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7829604484836344597==" Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" --===============7829604484836344597== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113ed256305ef70550ab1688" --001a113ed256305ef70550ab1688 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Good point re KoD denial of service. I'll reword this and send something out tomorrow morning. On Monday, May 29, 2017, Ulrich Windl wrote: > >>> Sharon Goldberg > schrieb am > 26.05.2017 um 19:48 in > Nachricht > >: > > Comments on the BCP: > > > > > > Modification to last paragraph of 6.4. > > > > Starting with ntp-4.2.8p7 the ntp.keys file accepts an optional 4th > column, > > a comma-separated list of IPs that are allowed to serve time. Use this > > feature. Note, however, that an adversarial client that knows the > > symmetric broadcast key could still easily spoof its source IP to an IP > > that is allowed to serve time. (This is easy to do because the origin > > timestamp on broadcast mode packets is not validated by the client. By > > I wonder: What is the benefit over restrict? If the purpose is to restrict > the use of a specific key in addition to the restrictions effective, > wouldn't the "restrict" keyword the proper place to do it? Also, while > autokey is deprecated there is not substitute for it. How would that play > with autokey? Not at all, I guess. > > > contrast, client/server and symmetric modes do require origin timestamp > > validation, making it more difficult to spoof packets [CCR16].) > > > > Modification to Section 7.2 (add the middle paragraph, as below). > > > > The "Kiss-o'-Death" (KoD) packet is a rate limiting mechanism where a > > server can tell a misbehaving client to "back off" its query rate. > > It is important for all NTP devices to respect these packets and back > > off when asked to do so by a server. It is even more important for > > an embedded device, which may not have exposed a control interface > > for NTP. > > > > That said, a client should only accept a KoD packet if it has a valid > > origin timestamp. Also, clients should be wary of accepting KoD > packet > > with large poll values (>10), which can cause a denial-of-service > > attack that causes the client to stop querying its server [NDSS16]. > > Clients > > should monitor their NTP instance to detect suspicious KoD packets. > > The above statement and the statement below are somewhat contradicting: > > Obove says that "poll > 10" and KoD will cause a denial of service, while > the below statement says som porly implemented clients could treat KoD like > a denial of service. > At least some explaing words are necessary IMHO. I.e.: Be specific "what > "poorly-implemented" means. > > Regards, > Ulrich > > > > > The KoD mechanism relies on clients behaving properly in order to be > > effective. Some clients ignore the KoD packet entirely, and other > > poorly-implemented clients might unintentionally increase their poll > > rate and simulate a denial of service attack. Server administrators > > should be prepared for this and take measures outside of the NTP > > protocol to drop packets from misbehaving clients. > > > > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Denis Reilly > orolia.com> wrote: > > > >> Hello, everyone. I have uploaded a new version (v04) of the NTP BCP > ahead > >> of our interim meeting later this week, based on the WGLC feedback. > >> > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ntp-bcp-04 > >> > >> > >> There are general changes for readability, as well as more substantial > >> changes to the "sources of time", "leap seconds", "autokey", "avoiding > >> daemon restart attacks", and "anycast". > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> > >> -- > >> Denis Reilly | Lead Engineer | denis.reilly@spectracom.orolia.com > > >> (585)321-5837 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ntpwg mailing list > >> ntpwg@lists.ntp.org > >> http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > --- > > Sharon Goldberg > > Computer Science, Boston University > > http://www.cs.bu.edu/~goldbe > > > > > -- --- Sharon Goldberg Computer Science, Boston University http://www.cs.bu.edu/~goldbe --001a113ed256305ef70550ab1688 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Good point re KoD denial of service.=C2=A0I'll reword this and send som= ething out tomorrow morning.=C2=A0

On Monday, May 29, 2017, Ulrich W= indl <Ulrich.Windl@= rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
>&= gt;> Sharon Goldberg <sharon.goldbe@gmail.com<= /a>> schrieb am 26.05.2017 um 19:48 in
Nachricht
<CAJHG= rrT-_YQD5EWNob-VHzoP6X94pZNT2Cw4vmVoixJn0q0Siw@mail.gmail.com>:
> Comments on the BCP:
>
>
> Modification to last paragraph of 6.4.
>
> Starting with ntp-4.2.8p7 the ntp.keys file accepts an optional 4th co= lumn,
> a comma-separated list of IPs that are allowed to serve time. Use this=
> feature.=C2=A0 Note, however, that an adversarial client that knows th= e
> symmetric broadcast key could still easily spoof its source IP to an I= P
> that is allowed to serve time. (This is easy to do because the origin<= br> > timestamp on broadcast mode packets is not validated by the client. By=

I wonder: What is the benefit over restrict? If the purpose is to restrict = the use of a specific key in addition to the restrictions effective, wouldn= 't the "restrict" keyword the proper place to do it? Also, wh= ile autokey is deprecated there is not substitute for it. How would that pl= ay with autokey? Not at all, I guess.

> contrast, client/server and symmetric modes do require origin timestam= p
> validation, making it more difficult to spoof packets [CCR16].)
>
> Modification to Section 7.2 (add the middle paragraph, as below).
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 The "Kiss-o'-Death" (KoD) packet is a rate = limiting mechanism where a
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 server can tell a misbehaving client to "back off&qu= ot; its query rate.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 It is important for all NTP devices to respect these pack= ets and back
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 off when asked to do so by a server.=C2=A0 It is even mor= e important for
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 an embedded device, which may not have exposed a control = interface
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 for NTP.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 That said, a client should only accept a KoD packet if it= has a valid
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 origin timestamp.=C2=A0 Also, clients should be wary of a= ccepting KoD packet
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 with large poll values (>10), which can cause a denial= -of-service
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 attack that causes the client to stop querying its server= [NDSS16].
> Clients
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 should monitor their NTP instance to detect suspicious Ko= D packets.

The above statement and the statement below are somewhat contradicting:

Obove says that "poll > 10" and KoD will cause a denial of ser= vice, while the below statement says som porly implemented clients could tr= eat KoD like a denial of service.
At least some explaing words are necessary IMHO. I.e.: Be specific "wh= at "poorly-implemented" means.

Regards,
Ulrich

>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 The KoD mechanism relies on clients behaving properly in = order to be
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 effective.=C2=A0 Some clients ignore the KoD packet entir= ely, and other
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 poorly-implemented clients might unintentionally increase= their poll
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 rate and simulate a denial of service attack.=C2=A0 Serve= r administrators
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 should be prepared for this and take measures outside of = the NTP
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 protocol to drop packets from misbehaving clients.
>
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Denis Reilly <denis.reilly@spectra= com.
> orolia.com> wro= te:
>
>> Hello, everyone. I have uploaded a new version (v04)=C2=A0 of the = NTP BCP ahead
>> of our interim meeting later this week, based on the WGLC feedback= .
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ie= tf-ntp-bcp-04
>>
>>
>> There are general changes for readability, as well as more substan= tial
>> changes to the "sources of time", "leap seconds&quo= t;, "autokey", "avoiding
>> daemon restart attacks", and "anycast".
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> --
>> Denis Reilly=C2=A0 |=C2=A0 Lead Engineer=C2=A0 |=C2=A0 denis.reilly@spectracom.orolia.com
>> (585)321-5837
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ntpwg mailing list
>> ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
>> = http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ---
> Sharon Goldberg
> Computer Science, Boston University
> http://www.= cs.bu.edu/~goldbe






--
---
Sharon Goldberg
Computer Science, Bos= ton University
http://www.cs.bu.edu/~goldbe
--001a113ed256305ef70550ab1688-- --===============7829604484836344597== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg --===============7829604484836344597==-- From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Mon May 29 15:13:35 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 264A8129485 for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 15:13:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 83fW4viqsSLm for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 15:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ACEB129484 for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 15:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90BD886DBA1 for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 22:13:32 +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 057D186D831 for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 22:13:29 +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 1dFSuf-0003HI-Nx for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Mon, 29 May 2017 22:13:28 +0000 Received: from hms-mbp11.pfcs.com (96-41-177-107.dhcp.mdfd.or.charter.com [96.41.177.107]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by chessie.everett.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 88D22B837; Mon, 29 May 2017 22:13:20 +0000 (UTC) To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org References: <592BB2BE020000A1000268C1@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> From: Harlan Stenn Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 15:13:19 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US 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 of BCP 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" On 5/29/17 8:10 AM, Sharon Goldberg wrote: > Good point re KoD denial of service. I'll reword this and send something > out tomorrow morning. > > On Monday, May 29, 2017, Ulrich Windl > wrote: > >>>>> Sharon Goldberg > schrieb am >> 26.05.2017 um 19:48 in >> Nachricht >> > >: >>> Comments on the BCP: >>> >>> >>> Modification to last paragraph of 6.4. >>> >>> Starting with ntp-4.2.8p7 the ntp.keys file accepts an optional 4th >> column, >>> a comma-separated list of IPs that are allowed to serve time. Use this >>> feature. Note, however, that an adversarial client that knows the >>> symmetric broadcast key could still easily spoof its source IP to an IP >>> that is allowed to serve time. (This is easy to do because the origin >>> timestamp on broadcast mode packets is not validated by the client. By >> >> I wonder: What is the benefit over restrict? If the purpose is to restrict >> the use of a specific key in addition to the restrictions effective, >> wouldn't the "restrict" keyword the proper place to do it? Also, while >> autokey is deprecated there is not substitute for it. How would that play >> with autokey? Not at all, I guess. It was cumbersome to do this with a 'restrict' entry. There can be many trusted keys, and if this protection was done via 'restrict' we'd need to associate key IDs with trusted time servers in places in the code where it was needlessly difficult to "make it work". Doing it in a restrict line also makes administration more cumbersome. >>> contrast, client/server and symmetric modes do require origin timestamp >>> validation, making it more difficult to spoof packets [CCR16].) >>> >>> Modification to Section 7.2 (add the middle paragraph, as below). >>> >>> The "Kiss-o'-Death" (KoD) packet is a rate limiting mechanism where a >>> server can tell a misbehaving client to "back off" its query rate. >>> It is important for all NTP devices to respect these packets and back >>> off when asked to do so by a server. It is even more important for >>> an embedded device, which may not have exposed a control interface >>> for NTP. >>> >>> That said, a client should only accept a KoD packet if it has a valid >>> origin timestamp. Also, clients should be wary of accepting KoD >>> packet >>> with large poll values (>10), which can cause a denial-of-service >>> attack that causes the client to stop querying its server [NDSS16]. >>> Clients >>> should monitor their NTP instance to detect suspicious KoD packets. >> >> The above statement and the statement below are somewhat contradicting: >> >> Above says that "poll > 10" and KoD will cause a denial of service, while >> the below statement says some poorly implemented clients could treat KoD like >> a denial of service. Yes, it's a tradeoff, and a bad actor can try and push out the poll interval. But a poll interval of 10 is "only" about 17 minutes. That's likely not a DoS attempt. But what about 12, which is about an hour? Or longer? Certainly, it doesn't *stop* ca client from querying a server, but it does delay it. Even a poll interval of 17 (36 hours) isn't *stopping* a client from querying a given server. But it does provide a large window for other things to happen. This is why proper monitoring is so important. Just because "we" don't see a reason to believe a poll interval of 17 as appropriate doesn't mean there won't be cases where is *is* appropriate. H >> At least some explaining words are necessary IMHO. I.e.: Be specific "what >> "poorly-implemented" means. >> >> Regards, >> Ulrich >> >>> >>> The KoD mechanism relies on clients behaving properly in order to be >>> effective. Some clients ignore the KoD packet entirely, and other >>> poorly-implemented clients might unintentionally increase their poll >>> rate and simulate a denial of service attack. Server administrators >>> should be prepared for this and take measures outside of the NTP >>> protocol to drop packets from misbehaving clients. >>> >>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Denis Reilly >> orolia.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello, everyone. I have uploaded a new version (v04) of the NTP BCP >> ahead >>>> of our interim meeting later this week, based on the WGLC feedback. >>>> >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ntp-bcp-04 >>>> >>>> >>>> There are general changes for readability, as well as more substantial >>>> changes to the "sources of time", "leap seconds", "autokey", "avoiding >>>> daemon restart attacks", and "anycast". >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Denis Reilly | Lead Engineer | denis.reilly@spectracom.orolia.com >> >>>> (585)321-5837 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ntpwg mailing list >>>> ntpwg@lists.ntp.org >>>> http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> --- >>> Sharon Goldberg >>> Computer Science, Boston University >>> http://www.cs.bu.edu/~goldbe >> >> >> >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > ntpwg mailing list > ntpwg@lists.ntp.org > http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg > -- 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 Tue May 30 01:30:39 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 7AF9B1287A3 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 01:30:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 XvnoMaG_VapY for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 01:30:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29B26127010 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 01:30:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3632986DBA3 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 08:30:37 +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 B9CD986DAE5 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 08:30:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1dFcXo-000PBr-83 for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Tue, 30 May 2017 08:30:33 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69FD85D68D; Tue, 30 May 2017 08:30:23 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 69FD85D68D Authentication-Results: ext-mx10.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx10.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mlichvar@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 69FD85D68D Received: from localhost (holly.brq.redhat.com [10.34.24.121]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CC5E7E5AF; Tue, 30 May 2017 08:30:22 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 10:30:21 +0200 From: Miroslav Lichvar To: Sharon Goldberg Message-ID: <20170530083021.GC25788@localhost> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.39]); Tue, 30 May 2017 08:30:23 +0000 (UTC) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.132.183.28 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mlichvar@redhat.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] New version of BCP 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" On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 01:48:26PM -0400, Sharon Goldberg wrote: > Comments on the BCP: > Modification to Section 7.2 (add the middle paragraph, as below). > > The "Kiss-o'-Death" (KoD) packet is a rate limiting mechanism where a > server can tell a misbehaving client to "back off" its query rate. > It is important for all NTP devices to respect these packets and back > off when asked to do so by a server. It is even more important for > an embedded device, which may not have exposed a control interface > for NTP. > > That said, a client should only accept a KoD packet if it has a valid > origin timestamp. Also, clients should be wary of accepting KoD packet > with large poll values (>10), which can cause a denial-of-service > attack that causes the client to stop querying its server [NDSS16]. > Clients > should monitor their NTP instance to detect suspicious KoD packets. I think this could go even further and suggest to ignore the poll value in server mode packets completely. A valid KoD RATE should temporarily increase the current polling interval up to a maximum, but it should not increase the minimum interval as an attacker can easily trigger a KoD response, which would increase the client's minimum poll, even though it's perfectly acceptable for the server. There are two issues: - some clients shorten their polling interval to the value provided by the server - some servers respond with the maximum of the client's poll and its rate limiting interval The second issue can be fixed only when most clients have fixed the first one, otherwise responding with a KoD RATE may actually increase the average polling rate. A proper fix will probably need to wait for NTPv5. -- Miroslav Lichvar _______________________________________________ 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 May 30 01:39:21 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 89D181293DF for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 01:39:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 NsCbp4Og7uFN for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 01:39:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 144EF128BB7 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 01:39:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6D4E86DB11 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 08:39:19 +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 8D73D86DAE5 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 08:39:15 +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 1dFcgE-000PYh-GA for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Tue, 30 May 2017 08:39:15 +0000 Received: from hms-mbp11.pfcs.com (96-41-177-107.dhcp.mdfd.or.charter.com [96.41.177.107]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by chessie.everett.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A9CDEB835; Tue, 30 May 2017 08:39:05 +0000 (UTC) To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org References: <20170530083021.GC25788@localhost> From: Harlan Stenn Message-ID: <95f9879d-4f71-8cc0-d7b7-260bb7a083f9@nwtime.org> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 01:39:04 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170530083021.GC25788@localhost> Content-Language: en-US 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 of BCP 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" On 5/30/17 1:30 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 01:48:26PM -0400, Sharon Goldberg wrote: >> Comments on the BCP: > >> Modification to Section 7.2 (add the middle paragraph, as below). >> >> The "Kiss-o'-Death" (KoD) packet is a rate limiting mechanism where a >> server can tell a misbehaving client to "back off" its query rate. >> It is important for all NTP devices to respect these packets and back >> off when asked to do so by a server. It is even more important for >> an embedded device, which may not have exposed a control interface >> for NTP. >> >> That said, a client should only accept a KoD packet if it has a valid >> origin timestamp. Also, clients should be wary of accepting KoD packet >> with large poll values (>10), which can cause a denial-of-service >> attack that causes the client to stop querying its server [NDSS16]. >> Clients >> should monitor their NTP instance to detect suspicious KoD packets. > > I think this could go even further and suggest to ignore the poll > value in server mode packets completely. A valid KoD RATE should > temporarily increase the current polling interval up to a maximum, but > it should not increase the minimum interval as an attacker can easily > trigger a KoD response, which would increase the client's minimum > poll, even though it's perfectly acceptable for the server. > > There are two issues: > - some clients shorten their polling interval to the value provided by > the server > - some servers respond with the maximum of the client's poll and its > rate limiting interval > > The second issue can be fixed only when most clients have fixed the > first one, otherwise responding with a KoD RATE may actually increase > the average polling rate. A proper fix will probably need to wait for > NTPv5. I disagree. There are cases where the client will send a "normal" poll interval and the server will respond with a different poll interval. It is arguably wrong for the client to ignore these recommendations from the server. But this goes to the general case, not specifically the KoD case. There are other problems as well - we've seen poorly implemented clients that will poll *faster* when given a KoD response. Given that proper implementations/configurations won't be doing this sort of abuse, the only thing we can hope for is that behind an improper configuration is a proper configuration, because an improper implementation behind an improper configuration will just misbehave. -- 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 Tue May 30 02:24:50 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 C70CC12951E for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 02:24:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 i92jxh-Os_8P for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 02:24:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93473129465 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 02:24:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F008086DB97 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 09:24:48 +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 176C986DAE5 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 09:24:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1dFdOG-0001B3-Iy for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Tue, 30 May 2017 09:24:46 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F6B5804E2 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 09:24:35 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 5F6B5804E2 Authentication-Results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mlichvar@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 5F6B5804E2 Received: from localhost (holly.brq.redhat.com [10.34.24.121]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D73B9183B9 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 09:24:34 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 11:24:33 +0200 From: Miroslav Lichvar To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Message-ID: <20170530092433.GD25788@localhost> References: <20170530083021.GC25788@localhost> <95f9879d-4f71-8cc0-d7b7-260bb7a083f9@nwtime.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <95f9879d-4f71-8cc0-d7b7-260bb7a083f9@nwtime.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.27]); Tue, 30 May 2017 09:24:35 +0000 (UTC) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.132.183.28 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mlichvar@redhat.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] New version of BCP 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" On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 01:39:04AM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote: > On 5/30/17 1:30 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > > There are two issues: > > - some clients shorten their polling interval to the value provided by > > the server > > - some servers respond with the maximum of the client's poll and its > > rate limiting interval > > > > The second issue can be fixed only when most clients have fixed the > > first one, otherwise responding with a KoD RATE may actually increase > > the average polling rate. A proper fix will probably need to wait for > > NTPv5. > > I disagree. There are cases where the client will send a "normal" poll > interval and the server will respond with a different poll interval. It > is arguably wrong for the client to ignore these recommendations from > the server. But this goes to the general case, not specifically the KoD > case. At least for the KoD case I think you will agree that a client using poll 10 should not jump to poll 6 when it receives a KoD RATE with poll 6, right? It think it would be good if ntpd stopped doing that. In NTPv5 we can consider to specify the poll value in KoD RATE packets to be the actual rate limiting interval. If a server requires clients to not use poll below 3, a client currently using poll 10 and having a minimum of 6 should not reset the minimum to 10 when it receives a KoD RATE, right? > Given that proper implementations/configurations won't be doing this > sort of abuse, the only thing we can hope for is that behind an improper > configuration is a proper configuration, because an improper > implementation behind an improper configuration will just misbehave. Right. As an implementer, however, I will probably not support something that I know can be easily exploited. I think it's better to have a rate limiting protocol which might be less effective, but is more secure and more likely to be widely used. -- Miroslav Lichvar _______________________________________________ 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 May 30 03:03:18 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 3D6241294D2 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 03:03:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 2rIOcn3XSOAB for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 03:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6C2A120454 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 03:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1EF586DB06 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 10:03:15 +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 1328386DAE5 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 10:03:13 +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 1dFdzU-0002Ul-1J for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Tue, 30 May 2017 10:03:12 +0000 Received: from hms-mbp11.pfcs.com (96-41-177-107.dhcp.mdfd.or.charter.com [96.41.177.107]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by chessie.everett.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B871B835; Tue, 30 May 2017 10:03:03 +0000 (UTC) To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org References: <20170530083021.GC25788@localhost> <95f9879d-4f71-8cc0-d7b7-260bb7a083f9@nwtime.org> <20170530092433.GD25788@localhost> From: Harlan Stenn Message-ID: <38eca510-0424-5252-0918-3d181f32a227@nwtime.org> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 03:03:02 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170530092433.GD25788@localhost> Content-Language: en-US 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 of BCP 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" On 5/30/17 2:24 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 01:39:04AM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote: >> On 5/30/17 1:30 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: >>> There are two issues: >>> - some clients shorten their polling interval to the value provided by >>> the server >>> - some servers respond with the maximum of the client's poll and its >>> rate limiting interval >>> >>> The second issue can be fixed only when most clients have fixed the >>> first one, otherwise responding with a KoD RATE may actually increase >>> the average polling rate. A proper fix will probably need to wait for >>> NTPv5. >> >> I disagree. There are cases where the client will send a "normal" poll >> interval and the server will respond with a different poll interval. It >> is arguably wrong for the client to ignore these recommendations from >> the server. But this goes to the general case, not specifically the KoD >> case. > > At least for the KoD case I think you will agree that a client using > poll 10 should not jump to poll 6 when it receives a KoD RATE with > poll 6, right? It think it would be good if ntpd stopped doing that. Where are you seeing this? The code says: xpkt.ppoll = max(rpkt->ppoll, ntp_minpoll); ... memcpy(&xpkt.refid, "RATE", 4); I'm also curious how polling more often than once every 1024 seconds is a rate violation, but that must be a local policy choice? > In NTPv5 we can consider to specify the poll value in KoD RATE packets > to be the actual rate limiting interval. If a server requires clients > to not use poll below 3, a client currently using poll 10 and having a > minimum of 6 should not reset the minimum to 10 when it receives a KoD > RATE, right? I'm not understanding you here. If there's a minpoll value of 3, that's every 8 seconds. If the client is polling at 10, that's 1024 seconds. The default value for minpkt is a poll interval of 2. >> Given that proper implementations/configurations won't be doing this >> sort of abuse, the only thing we can hope for is that behind an improper >> configuration is a proper configuration, because an improper >> implementation behind an improper configuration will just misbehave. > > Right. As an implementer, however, I will probably not support > something that I know can be easily exploited. I think it's better to > have a rate limiting protocol which might be less effective, but is > more secure and more likely to be widely used. I'm still missing something. What can be easily exploited? What is "more secure"? I think the "more likely to be widely used" is a nice thought. -- 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 Tue May 30 03:33:44 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 C727C126DCA for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 03:33:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 dSmUvaL--H2y for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 03:33:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 038911200C1 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 03:33:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83D5886DB9A for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 10:33:42 +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 3723D86DAE5 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 10:33:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1dFeSx-0008b1-FM for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Tue, 30 May 2017 10:33:39 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39C703DE3E for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 10:33:30 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 39C703DE3E Authentication-Results: ext-mx05.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx05.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mlichvar@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 39C703DE3E Received: from localhost (holly.brq.redhat.com [10.34.24.121]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC1A47E2EE for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 10:33:29 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 12:33:28 +0200 From: Miroslav Lichvar To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Message-ID: <20170530103328.GE25788@localhost> References: <20170530083021.GC25788@localhost> <95f9879d-4f71-8cc0-d7b7-260bb7a083f9@nwtime.org> <20170530092433.GD25788@localhost> <38eca510-0424-5252-0918-3d181f32a227@nwtime.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <38eca510-0424-5252-0918-3d181f32a227@nwtime.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.29]); Tue, 30 May 2017 10:33:30 +0000 (UTC) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.132.183.28 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mlichvar@redhat.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] New version of BCP 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" On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 03:03:02AM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote: > On 5/30/17 2:24 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > > At least for the KoD case I think you will agree that a client using > > poll 10 should not jump to poll 6 when it receives a KoD RATE with > > poll 6, right? It think it would be good if ntpd stopped doing that. > > Where are you seeing this? The code says: > > xpkt.ppoll = max(rpkt->ppoll, ntp_minpoll); > ... > memcpy(&xpkt.refid, "RATE", 4); That's the server issue, which can be fixed only when clients don't shorten their poll anymore. The client issue is in peer->ppoll = max(peer->minpoll, pkt->ppoll); It was reported here: http://bugs.ntp.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3055 > I'm also curious how polling more often than once every 1024 seconds is > a rate violation, but that must be a local policy choice? The client is not violating the maximum rate. It's the attacker who is sending spoofed requests at a higher rate. > > In NTPv5 we can consider to specify the poll value in KoD RATE packets > > to be the actual rate limiting interval. If a server requires clients > > to not use poll below 3, a client currently using poll 10 and having a > > minimum of 6 should not reset the minimum to 10 when it receives a KoD > > RATE, right? > > I'm not understanding you here. If there's a minpoll value of 3, that's > every 8 seconds. If the client is polling at 10, that's 1024 seconds. Yes, but the attacker may be sending spoofed requests at any rate and when the client sends a genuine request, the server may respond with a KoD RATE packet using poll 10 (the client's current poll), which would increase the client's minimum poll from 6 to 10. > The default value for minpkt is a poll interval of 2. Yes, and the default value of ntp_minpoll, which is the minimum value in KoD rate packets, is 3. -- Miroslav Lichvar _______________________________________________ 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 May 30 03:56:05 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 4C41E129BB7 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 03:56:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 Bx_UvTcoX3RW for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 03:56:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C54126CC7 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 03:56:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5577186DB9A for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 10:56:03 +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 8129F86DAE5 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 10:56:00 +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 1dFeoa-0009Nr-Ek for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Tue, 30 May 2017 10:56:00 +0000 Received: from hms-mbp11.pfcs.com (96-41-177-107.dhcp.mdfd.or.charter.com [96.41.177.107]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by chessie.everett.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 81F6CB837; Tue, 30 May 2017 10:55:51 +0000 (UTC) To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org References: <20170530083021.GC25788@localhost> <95f9879d-4f71-8cc0-d7b7-260bb7a083f9@nwtime.org> <20170530092433.GD25788@localhost> <38eca510-0424-5252-0918-3d181f32a227@nwtime.org> <20170530103328.GE25788@localhost> From: Harlan Stenn Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 03:55:50 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170530103328.GE25788@localhost> Content-Language: en-US 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 of BCP 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" On 5/30/17 3:33 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 03:03:02AM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote: >> On 5/30/17 2:24 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: >>> At least for the KoD case I think you will agree that a client using >>> poll 10 should not jump to poll 6 when it receives a KoD RATE with >>> poll 6, right? It think it would be good if ntpd stopped doing that. >> >> Where are you seeing this? The code says: >> >> xpkt.ppoll = max(rpkt->ppoll, ntp_minpoll); >> ... >> memcpy(&xpkt.refid, "RATE", 4); > > That's the server issue, which can be fixed only when clients don't > shorten their poll anymore. The client issue is in > > peer->ppoll = max(peer->minpoll, pkt->ppoll); > > It was reported here: http://bugs.ntp.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3055 Thanks - I'll look at this, after I get some sleep. >> I'm also curious how polling more often than once every 1024 seconds is >> a rate violation, but that must be a local policy choice? > > The client is not violating the maximum rate. It's the attacker who is > sending spoofed requests at a higher rate. As I recall: - we don't pay attention to KoD packets that don't pass packet timestamp checks. - if an attacker is forging packets claiming to be from us, we log the "unexpected" replies. - if there's an association, I thought we were also looking at the poll interval and if packets come in too quickly we log that, too. >>> In NTPv5 we can consider to specify the poll value in KoD RATE packets >>> to be the actual rate limiting interval. If a server requires clients >>> to not use poll below 3, a client currently using poll 10 and having a >>> minimum of 6 should not reset the minimum to 10 when it receives a KoD >>> RATE, right? >> >> I'm not understanding you here. If there's a minpoll value of 3, that's >> every 8 seconds. If the client is polling at 10, that's 1024 seconds. > > Yes, but the attacker may be sending spoofed requests at any rate and > when the client sends a genuine request, the server may respond with > a KoD RATE packet using poll 10 (the client's current poll), which > would increase the client's minimum poll from 6 to 10. If the real client is polling with 6, the abused server that is ready to KoD/RATE will respond with 6. If the abuser is sending 10, the client would be rejecting those packets because they fail the origin timestamp check. >> The default value for minpkt is a poll interval of 2. > > Yes, and the default value of ntp_minpoll, which is the minimum value > in KoD rate packets, is 3. Is it useful to discuss this here, or should we trim the recipient list? I have to be up in 6 hours' time, more later. -- 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 Tue May 30 04:31:24 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 69B3B129BD4 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 04:31:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 k1yFL0tfFVwu for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 04:31:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3D7C120454 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 04:31:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BD4C86DB9E for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 11:31:22 +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 6283586DAE6 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 11:31:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1dFfMj-000AaW-TW for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Tue, 30 May 2017 11:31:19 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B8F080C0A for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 11:31:09 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 2B8F080C0A Authentication-Results: ext-mx02.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx02.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mlichvar@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 2B8F080C0A Received: from localhost (holly.brq.redhat.com [10.34.24.121]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3ED55DC1F for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 11:31:08 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:31:07 +0200 From: Miroslav Lichvar To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Message-ID: <20170530113107.GF25788@localhost> References: <20170530083021.GC25788@localhost> <95f9879d-4f71-8cc0-d7b7-260bb7a083f9@nwtime.org> <20170530092433.GD25788@localhost> <38eca510-0424-5252-0918-3d181f32a227@nwtime.org> <20170530103328.GE25788@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.26]); Tue, 30 May 2017 11:31:09 +0000 (UTC) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.132.183.28 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mlichvar@redhat.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] New version of BCP 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" On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 03:55:50AM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote: > On 5/30/17 3:33 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > > Yes, but the attacker may be sending spoofed requests at any rate and > > when the client sends a genuine request, the server may respond with > > a KoD RATE packet using poll 10 (the client's current poll), which > > would increase the client's minimum poll from 6 to 10. > > If the real client is polling with 6, the abused server that is ready to > KoD/RATE will respond with 6. If the abuser is sending 10, the client > would be rejecting those packets because they fail the origin timestamp > check. Right. It doesn't matter what the attacker is sending as long as it triggers rate limiting on the server. The problem is in the KoD RATE response corresponding to the client's request, which increases the client's minimum poll to its current poll. > >> The default value for minpkt is a poll interval of 2. > > > > Yes, and the default value of ntp_minpoll, which is the minimum value > > in KoD rate packets, is 3. > > Is it useful to discuss this here, or should we trim the recipient list? Implementation-specific details probably don't belong here. The discussion was about the BCP and what should it say about poll in KoD RATE packets. -- Miroslav Lichvar _______________________________________________ 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 May 30 16:36:16 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 BFBE0129484 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 16:36:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.09 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com 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 JntCa0AQ__YM for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 16:36:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A75412947E for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 16:36:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC5C386DBA1 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 23:36:14 +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 DFDDC86D831 for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 08:26:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-it0-f49.google.com ([209.85.214.49]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1dFG0a-000MRs-Ka for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Mon, 29 May 2017 08:26:45 +0000 Received: by mail-it0-f49.google.com with SMTP id w68so6792316itc.0 for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 01:26:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=H/Ca/GIuro2Z4RQsIu/MAZ8kpH3zfFtq/4fs24WOzv0=; b=Xwi1BwA9sjYIn9EflR0xbU02tRn2+86MJVByrPunK2c9Z5HnQmzf97uXQQpjOvx24X P7GzBQDYz8rgNgzWFoliP0409u49gvVhi7qw/prQEyKwZSzRucyMgfkq8AT7AFqV10gu qlpprt+e8qMWKWPnZJq+dtZywmCtaBVLZXbaVoMNLKWu5rbed3E6jv82iNGvEWcLN9Nn vl9Hv/ohY9u86F4a4B8k/604XtK+vkwZKHNqLdJIYvvQlvNdcbiTIEJ+EeLkvc+aneUK mRQ+tdyA8s23hJLqt21QZFUDKsSjHarq+pm3aZ4oVIzqyokoMOeBE7W8VasgbDJebmle YJ/A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=H/Ca/GIuro2Z4RQsIu/MAZ8kpH3zfFtq/4fs24WOzv0=; b=tc9UI+b6RsQlJDJ4E8whjWduOF/XP9Ld8QypcfnDkYa80VWuKcAF+CjFn26eTprXqT KyhMMnHfZJo53HWRGQRfVZjmdacOqH21XVqztYiP9BNUR+YcSzLzcr2ts0Ve3M63OIg8 yTNWWvDN4Y2NTwRNJOlbdIFnq5FnetWgrjfO5rGeLmKEuvz6x4FahNoxAqbDYDiZd5S0 nSgP+OM7MTnGHH6wmyFPI75twFMRgY7NWRSPp+p6njW4Y+77p4NDWKhSXkPIScJhjJzq CXtekNbuyMod6rE4riRc+S3NNCYyBA0xZY+9J+bHQxJKpaPhrSuWwVWyQtMOSt1d+e7E PUEg== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAZCuGq2QjCLYPdulPVkuNA4nZzMsCvtYw2tMle28kXmTn3q6Sk 27usy20Fax1MptwGW76Scf8m/xOtpE7y X-Received: by 10.36.222.69 with SMTP id d66mr18348916itg.14.1496046395981; Mon, 29 May 2017 01:26:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.228.175 with HTTP; Mon, 29 May 2017 01:26:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Loganaden Velvindron Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:26:35 +0400 Message-ID: To: dafranke@akamai.com, aanchal4@bu.edu, ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.214.49 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: loganaden@gmail.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 30 May 2017 23:36:12 +0000 Subject: [ntpwg] draft-ietf-ntp-data-minimization-00 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" I've looked into openntpd, and transmit timestamp is already randomized using arc4random(): client.c line 188: p->query->msg.xmttime.int_partl = arc4random(); p->query->msg.xmttime.fractionl = arc4random(); Perhaps a small section could be added for open source implementations who have already implemented this ? Also, suggest using arc4random() as an example of a randomization function might offer guidance to implementors ? Kind regards, //Logan _______________________________________________ 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 May 30 23:19:20 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 D31DD129B62 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 23:19:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 VynHkWRsL2VA for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 23:19:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBA32128BC8 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 23:19:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33FE786DBA1 for ; Wed, 31 May 2017 06:19:18 +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 0E82186DAB6 for ; Wed, 31 May 2017 06:19:15 +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 1dFwyI-000O3d-6P for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 31 May 2017 06:19:15 +0000 Received: from rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id A02B75CE29 for ; Wed, 31 May 2017 08:19:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.5.51]) by rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 667AC5CE27 for ; Wed, 31 May 2017 08:19:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 31 May 2017 08:19:04 +0200 Message-Id: <592E6055020000A100026942@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 14.2.2 Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 08:19:01 +0200 From: "Ulrich Windl" To: , References: <20170530083021.GC25788@localhost> <95f9879d-4f71-8cc0-d7b7-260bb7a083f9@nwtime.org> <20170530092433.GD25788@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20170530092433.GD25788@localhost> 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: Re: New version of BCP 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" >>> Miroslav Lichvar schrieb am 30.05.2017 um 11:24 in Nachricht <20170530092433.GD25788@localhost>: > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 01:39:04AM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote: >> On 5/30/17 1:30 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: >> > There are two issues: >> > - some clients shorten their polling interval to the value provided by >> > the server >> > - some servers respond with the maximum of the client's poll and its >> > rate limiting interval >> > >> > The second issue can be fixed only when most clients have fixed the >> > first one, otherwise responding with a KoD RATE may actually increase >> > the average polling rate. A proper fix will probably need to wait for >> > NTPv5. >> >> I disagree. There are cases where the client will send a "normal" poll >> interval and the server will respond with a different poll interval. It >> is arguably wrong for the client to ignore these recommendations from >> the server. But this goes to the general case, not specifically the KoD >> case. > > At least for the KoD case I think you will agree that a client using > poll 10 should not jump to poll 6 when it receives a KoD RATE with > poll 6, right? It think it would be good if ntpd stopped doing that. I think it depends: A KoD response is no valid timestamp, and the client (when not having many better choices) might try to reduce the polling interval to keep the dispersion low. Reading section 7.4 of RFC 5905 I find that the whole semantics is mostly unspecified (poll is nowhere mentioned), so why be surprised? > > In NTPv5 we can consider to specify the poll value in KoD RATE packets > to be the actual rate limiting interval. If a server requires clients > to not use poll below 3, a client currently using poll 10 and having a > minimum of 6 should not reset the minimum to 10 when it receives a KoD > RATE, right? > >> Given that proper implementations/configurations won't be doing this >> sort of abuse, the only thing we can hope for is that behind an improper >> configuration is a proper configuration, because an improper >> implementation behind an improper configuration will just misbehave. > > Right. As an implementer, however, I will probably not support > something that I know can be easily exploited. I think it's better to > have a rate limiting protocol which might be less effective, but is > more secure and more likely to be widely used. > > -- > Miroslav Lichvar > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed May 31 02:08:33 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 72B2D129B67 for ; Wed, 31 May 2017 02:08:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 wNqT6kINSFnO for ; Wed, 31 May 2017 02:08:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B11E9126DD9 for ; Wed, 31 May 2017 02:08:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0240986DB97 for ; Wed, 31 May 2017 09:08:31 +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 74D4B86DAB6 for ; Wed, 31 May 2017 09:08:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1dFzc2-0004PD-TH for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 31 May 2017 09:08:28 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 955A5C049D57; Wed, 31 May 2017 09:08:17 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 955A5C049D57 Authentication-Results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mlichvar@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 955A5C049D57 Received: from localhost (holly.brq.redhat.com [10.34.24.121]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBB9384AC8; Wed, 31 May 2017 09:08:16 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 11:08:15 +0200 From: Miroslav Lichvar To: Ulrich Windl Message-ID: <20170531090815.GI25788@localhost> References: <20170530083021.GC25788@localhost> <95f9879d-4f71-8cc0-d7b7-260bb7a083f9@nwtime.org> <20170530092433.GD25788@localhost> <592E6055020000A100026942@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <592E6055020000A100026942@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.31]); Wed, 31 May 2017 09:08:17 +0000 (UTC) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.132.183.28 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mlichvar@redhat.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Antw: Re: New version of BCP 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" On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 08:19:01AM +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote: > >>> Miroslav Lichvar schrieb am 30.05.2017 um 11:24 in > > At least for the KoD case I think you will agree that a client using > > poll 10 should not jump to poll 6 when it receives a KoD RATE with > > poll 6, right? It think it would be good if ntpd stopped doing that. > > I think it depends: A KoD response is no valid timestamp, and the client (when not having many better choices) might try to reduce the polling interval to keep the dispersion low. Yes, some clients do that. A well-behaved client slowly increases its polling interval when it's not getting useful data. The server or the network may be overloaded. If all clients reduced their polling interval when that happens, it would basically be a DDOS attack. > Reading section 7.4 of RFC 5905 I find that the whole semantics is mostly unspecified (poll is nowhere mentioned), so why be surprised? It doesn't explain the poll value in the packet, which is not even specified for non-KoD packets, but I think it clearly says (with the errata 3007) that the client's interval should go up, not down: b. For kiss code RATE, the client MUST immediately increase its polling interval to that server and continue to increase it each time it receives a RATE kiss code. Other parts of the section 7.4 might need an update. For instance, it says clients MUST implement the DENY and RSTR codes, but if I remember correctly, the only client that does that is the sntp client from ntp. -- Miroslav Lichvar _______________________________________________ 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 Wed May 31 19:25:10 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 B1EE712949E for ; Wed, 31 May 2017 19:25:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.798 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 v7A2gb7uWn9G for ; Wed, 31 May 2017 19:25:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A140126C2F for ; Wed, 31 May 2017 19:25:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F4F586DB89 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 02:25:08 +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 3D9EE86DAB6 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 02:25:06 +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 1dGFnE-000IQx-2d for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2017 02:25:06 +0000 Received: from [10.10.10.112] (pool-71-174-223-143.bstnma.east.verizon.net [71.174.223.143]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by chessie.everett.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 84636B88B; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 02:24:54 +0000 (UTC) To: Aanchal Malhotra , Sharon Goldberg References: <470ea3aa53404dd3a5aa0b3c258786ba@XCH-RTP-006.cisco.com> From: Danny Mayer Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 22:24:52 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 66.220.13.234 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mayer@ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Minor correction on draft-aanchal4-ntp-mac 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" I think this is ready for adoption. There is one change that should be made to indicate that this draft/RFC updates RFC5905. I believe that should be in the header of the document. Karen will be able to confirm. Danny _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg