On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 04:41:25AM +0000, Karen O'Donoghue wrote: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp/ > > Please review and provide comments to the mailing list by no later than 31 > August 2017.
I don't support advancing the document as it currently stands (commit 5835e58 in the github repo). As I said before [1], the main issue for me is the use of DTLS transport in the symmetric mode. It's an easy solution how to get around some issues, but it demotes the mode to a second-class status. I think all timing messages in NTP should use the same transport. i.e. standard NTP format with optional extension fields on UDP port 123. The draft is still not clear on how should two active peers match their DTLS connections. I think it would need to specify the port of the DTLS client or exchange some additional information in DTLS or NTP that would identify the peer. My recommendation is to remove the specification of NTS in the symmetric mode from the document, at least for now. I believe the NTS-KE used in the client/server mode can be adopted for the symmetric mode, possibly with some small extensions, but it will take time. I think most of us here will agree it shouldn't delay the adoption of NTS in the client/server mode. [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ntp/current/msg02048.html -- Miroslav Lichvar _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
