[ntpwg] NTP WG Last Call:draft-ietf-ntp-autokey-03.txt

[David L. Mills]

Brian,

Thanks for that.

Dave

Brian Haberman wrote:

> Hi Dave,
>      Yes, I will make these changes and submit a new version.
>
> Regards,
> Brian
>
> David L. Mills wrote:
>
>> Brian,
>>
>> I don't have the XML for the current version 10. Can you make the 
>> changes?
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> Danny Mayer wrote:
>>
>>> Here is my review of the document. I have read the document and 
>>> except for the minors issues detailed below, I believe that it is 
>>> ready to be moved forward.
>>>
>>> P1. Header
>>> Obsoletes RFC1305. Autokey is not described in RFC 1305 and in any 
>>> case this is an Informational RFC rather than standards track and 
>>> should not be able to obsolete any standards track RFC. That would 
>>> require another standards track RFC. I am however supportive of 
>>> making this a standards track RFC.
>>>
>>> P7 Section 3
>>> Change "with exceptions as noted in the NTP software documentation" 
>>> to "with exceptions as noted in the NTPv4 RFC [Reference here]."
>>>
>>> P7 Section 3 Item 1
>>> change the reference of [RFC1305] to [NTPv4 RFC].
>>>
>>> P12 Section 5
>>> Change "posts the client keys on a public web site" to "delivers the 
>>> client keys by secure means"
>>>
>>> P14 Item 1
>>> Change "The girls" to "The servers"
>>>
>>> P17 at top of page
>>> The sentence "In order to foil such attacks, every Autokey message 
>>> carries a timestamp in the form of the NTP seconds when it was. "
>>> is missing a word or two at the end. Please complete the sentence. 
>>> Is this just missing the word "created"?
>>>
>>> P18 Last item: Cookie exchange
>>> "The request includes the public key of the." is missing a word. Is 
>>> this meant to be "server"?
>>>
>>> P19 Second item: Sign exchange
>>>      "It
>>>       extracts the subject, issuer, and extension fields, builds a new
>>>       certificate with these data along with its own serial number and
>>>       expiration time, then signs it using its own public key and
>>>       includes it in the response."
>>>
>>> I would have expected it to use its private key to sign the response 
>>> not its public key or am I misunderstanding the design?
>>>
>>> P22 Bottom of page
>>> Change "remaining data are the MAC" to "remaining data is the MAC" 
>>> (singular, not plural, there's only one MAC).
>>> Change "lengthuses uses" to "length uses"
>>>
>>> P21 Section 10 Autokey Protocol Messages
>>> Add a separate paragraph after the first paragraph that states the 
>>> following:
>>> "The following terms: light, lit, etc. means that the bit value is 
>>> set to 1, while the terms dark, dim, etc. means that the bit value 
>>> is set to 0".
>>> This is necessary since the terms are used liberally throughout this 
>>> section without assigning a specific meaning to them.
>>>
>>> P27 Section 11.1
>>> The term livelock is used without being defined as to its meaning.
>>>
>>> P30 Section 11.4.1 Last sentence
>>> Change "This example and others assumes the IFF identity scheme has 
>>> been selected in the parameter exchange.." to
>>> "The following example and others assumes the IFF identity scheme 
>>> has been selected in the parameter exchange."
>>>
>>> P34 second paragraph from bottom
>>>   "In order to reduce
>>>    the vulnerability in such cases, the crypto-NAK, as well as all
>>>    responses, is believed only if the result of a previous packet sent
>>>    by the client and not a replay, as confirmed by the NTP on-wire
>>>    protocol."
>>> to
>>>   "In order to reduce
>>>    the vulnerability in such cases, the crypto-NAK, as well as all
>>>    responses, is believed only if the result of a previous packet sent
>>>    by the client is not a replay, as confirmed by the NTP on-wire
>>>    protocol."
>>> I'm changing "and not a replay" to "is not a replay" which is what I 
>>> believe is the intent of the sentence.
>>>
>>> P35 Section 11.7
>>> Change "tempoerarily revers" to "temporarily reverts"
>>>
>>> P37 Section 12
>>> "Any IANA registries needed?" to
>>> "IANA is requested to add to the Extension Field Types associated 
>>> with the NTP protocol (see NTPv4 RFC section 16), the values 1 
>>> through 7 for the autokey protocol."
>>>
>>> Please let me know if you need additional clarification on these items.
>>>
>>> Danny
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ntpwg mailing list
>> ntpwg at lists.ntp.org
>> https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg
>