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

[TS Glassey]

Can we postpone Last call for a week then to verify that the updated version 
is what is advanced?

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David L. Mills" <mills at udel.edu>
To: "NTP Working Group" <ntpwg at lists.ntp.isc.org>
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: [ntpwg] NTP WG Last Call:draft-ietf-ntp-autokey-03.txt


> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ntpwg mailing list
> ntpwg at lists.ntp.org
> https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg