[ntpwg] Problem with Symmetric Key in both NTPv4 and Autokey drafts

[David L. Mills]

Yaakov,

I have no trouble with your changes.

Dave

Yaakov Stein wrote:

> Danny,
>
> I tend to agree that there are some wording problems here.
>
> First, the wording "described in this report" should probably be fixed 
> to "described in this RFC".
>
> Second, the symmetric key cryptographic algorithm is really NOT 
> described very much here,
> however, I guess we can get away with the following three "descriptions"
> the following page :
> finally an optional message authentication code
> (MAC) consisting of the key identifier field and message digest field
> page 33
> however, if authentication is implemented, then the MD5 keyed hash 
> algorithm
> described in [RFC1321] must be supported.
> page 55
> NTPv4 provides an optional authentication field that utilizes the MD5
> algorithm.
>
> Third, while we are at it, the wording on page 3
> While the NTPv3 symmetric key authentication scheme described in this 
> document has been carried
> over from NTPv3 ...
> should really read
> While the symmetric key authentication scheme described in this 
> document has been carried
> over from NTPv3 ...
>
> Finally, I am not sure if we are allowed to reference back to RFC 1305 
> Appendix C as the source of
> the authentication, if this RFC is being obsoleted here. However, if 
> we do, then 1305
> should not be listed as an <informative> reference, but rather as a 
> <normative> one.
> I think we need Mark's guidance here.
>
> Y(J)S
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ntpwg-bounces+yaakov_s=rad.com at lists.ntp.org 
> [mailto:ntpwg-bounces+yaakov_s=rad.com at lists.ntp.org] On Behalf Of 
> Danny Mayer
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 9:17 PM
> To: David L. Mills
> Cc: NTP Working Group
> Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Problem with Symmetric Key in both NTPv4 and 
> Autokey drafts
>
> Dave,
>
> I'll let someone else pipe up about this with their view. It may just 
> be me.
>
> Danny
> David L. Mills wrote:
>
>> Danny,
>>
>> I thought the symmetric key description was clear from context. If you
>> think otherwise, please feel free to modifiy the documents or provide
>> markup.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> Danny Mayer wrote:
>>
>>> I have been reading the autokey draft and it mentions the symmetric
>>> key authentication referencing the NTPv3 RFC 1305. See P7 Section 3 
>>> item 1.
>>> However that RFC is obsoleted by both the NTPv4 draft and the autokey
>>> draft (though I'm not sure an Informational RFC can obsolete a
>>> standards track RFC). The NTPv4 draft mentions in Section 7.3 (P.17)
>>> that symmetric key it is described in the draft when it does not. It
>>> looks like we need to pull parts of RFC 1305 Appendix C into the
>>> NTPv4 draft if that's what needs to be copied. I missed this
>>> yesterday when going through the document.
>>>
>>> Sorry to hold things up, but that's an important piece of the NTPv4
>>> protocol.
>>>
>>> Danny
>>
> _______________________________________________
> ntpwg mailing list
> ntpwg at lists.ntp.org
> https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg