I am strongly in favor of moving this draft toward standardization.
This is tremendous work that will eliminate entire classes of attacks
against protocols that depend on synchronized time.

A few comments:

(1) I couldn't figure out if it is possible for the client to request
multiple cookies with time synchronization requests. If it isn't, it
seems like it should be to avoid the inevitable re-establishment of
keys if the client's cookie pool permanently drops by one every time a
packet is lost. Being able to request more than one cookie will enable
the client to maintain the recommended pool of 8.

(2) In section 5, the description of the record type field seems
wrong. It says q( A 15-bit integer in network byte order (from
most-to-least significant, its bits are record bits 7-1 and then
15-8). ). This seems to imply that (for example) the value 16385 would
be encoded as 000000100000001 when read from left-to-right in the
given diagram, when I believe it should be encoded as 100000000000001.
I would just lose everything between the parentheses: it seems
sufficient to say that record type is a 15-bit unsigned integer in
NBO.

(3) Section 5.2 states that key material "SHALL" be extracted
according to RFC 5705. What is the plan if some TLS 1.3-specific
mechanism deprecates 5705?

Kyle

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 12:41 AM, Karen O'Donoghue <[email protected]> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> This begins a three week working group last call (WGLC) for "Network Time 
> Security for the Network Time Protocol”.
>
> 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. 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 [email protected]. ]
>
> Regards,
> Karen and Dieter
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp

_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc

Reply via email to