Hi, I believe this draft is clear and well-written. A couple of major comments should probably be addressed before proceeding.
Major comments: - This may have been discussed before, but still I am not sure what the answer is: it seems to make sense to define this new MAC as a dedicated extension field. Any reason not to do that? Since this draft deprecates the previous MD5-based MAC, there are no backward compatibility considerations. - To allow algorithm agility, I would suggest to add a field that specifies the algorithm + a corresponding IANA registry. Less major comments: - Missing security considerations section. - Missing IANA considerations section. - "any extension fields that are present" => "every extension fields that is present". Thanks, Tal. On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Karen O'Donoghue <odonog...@isoc.org> wrote: > Folks, > > This begins a three week working group last call (WGLC) for "Message > Authentication Code for the Network Time Protocol" > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-mac/ > > Please review and provide comments to the mailing list by no later than 31 > August 2017. Earlier comments and discussion would be appreciated. Please > note that the chairs will be using this WGLC to determine consensus to move > this document forward to the IESG. > > Also, as a reminder, we have migrated the working group mailing list to > IETF infrastructure. Please respond to n...@ietf.org. > > Regards, > Karen and Dieter > > _______________________________________________ > TICTOC mailing list > TICTOC@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc > >
_______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list TICTOC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
