Shepherd writeup

This is the publication request and document shepherd write up for: 

Network Time Security for the Network Time Protocol

Prepared by: Karen O’Donoghue, 7 November 2019  

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Proposed Standard

This is a new badly needed security mechanism for client/server modes of service for NTP. It is based on TLS. As such, it should be Standards Track, and it has been proposed as such. 

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary: 

This memo specifies Network Time Security (NTS), a mechanism for    using Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) to provide cryptographic security for the client-server mode of the Network Time Protocol (NTP).

NTS is structured as a suite of two loosely coupled sub-protocols. The first (NTS-KE) handles initial authentication and key establishment over TLS.  The second handles encryption and authentication during NTP time synchronization via extension fields in the NTP packets, and holds all required state only on the client via opaque cookies.

Working Group Summary:

The document has clear working group consensus for publication, and has been reviewed by several WG participants since its initial adoption as a working group item. 

Document Quality:
This document has been reviewed and revised several times during its development. There were no specific external expert reviews conducted; however, security area review was specifically solicited. 

Karen O'Donoghue is acting as the Document Shepherd.  Suresh Krishnan is the Responsible Area Director. 

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
The document shepherd has followed the working group process and reviewed the final document and feels this document is more than ready for IESG review. 

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The document shepherd does not have any concerns about the reviews that were performed. 

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

This document does not require any special reviews beyond those planned during the IESG review process. 
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
The Document Shepherd is comfortable with this document. 

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

There are no IPR filings on this document. The document shepherd has requested confirmation from all the authors that they are in full conformance with the provisions of BCP78 and BCP79 with respect to IPR disclosures. 
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

There is no IPR disclosures for this document. 
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The document represents strong WG consensus. It has been evolving in the working group for a number of years. There is one working group member who has not agreed with the working group consensus. This is based on the fact that the solution only provides for the client/server modes of NTP operation. However, the remaining working members have agreed that the vast majority of NTP usage is actually client/server mode, and there is a strong need to get this solution out there. Additionally there are multiple independent implementations and two public servers supporting NTS at this point in time. 
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. 

There have been no threats of anyone appealing the documents.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. 

The document shepherd ran ID nits and found a few minor issues that can be fixed on the next iteration. 

1 Error: 
One normative reference to an informational RFC: RFC 5297
This was intentional and will remain as specified given that the referenced document is for SIV, a block cipher mode of operation. 

1 Warning:
One FQDN warning… (will be spelled out)

Two uses of square brackets in equations that trigger the “looks like a reference but probably isn’t” comment
An information reference that needs to be updated RFC 5077 → RFC 8446
Date on document is old (delay in shepherd writeup)

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

There are no formal review criteria for this document. 
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

All references are tagged as normative or informative.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are completed.
(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

There is one downref flagged (RFC 5297), but this was intentional and will remain as specified given that the referenced document is for SIV, a block cipher mode of operation. This is IETF standard practice for crypto documents. 

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

This document does not change the status of any existing RFCs. 
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

This document requests allocations from five existing registries along with the creation of four new registries. All the actions specified are consistent with the document and reasonably specified. 

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. 

The new registries all require either IETF review or specification required.  

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

There were no automated checks on formal language.