Network Time Protocol I-Do Extension Field
draft-stenn-ntp-i-do-02

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (ntp WG)
Last updated 2016-10-24
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state Candidate for WG Adoption
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Internet Engineering Task Force                                 H. Stenn
Internet-Draft                                   Network Time Foundation
Intended status: Standards Track                        October 23, 2016
Expires: April 26, 2017

               Network Time Protocol I-Do Extension Field
                        draft-stenn-ntp-i-do-02

Abstract

   The first implementation of NTPv4 was released in 2003.  NTPv4 is
   defined by RFC 5905 [RFC5905].  It contains a public-key security
   protocol, autokey, which is defined by RFC 5906 [RFC5906].  Until
   very recently, autokey has been the only defined "user" of NTP packet
   Extension Fields.  New proposals for extension fields are being
   written and there is currently no convenient way to learn if a remote
   instance of NTP supports any extension fields or not.  This proposal
   contains a method to tell a remote instance of NTP what we (are
   willing to admit we) support, and ask what they (are willing to admit
   they) support.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 26, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents

Stenn                    Expires April 26, 2017                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         Network Time Protocol I-Do           October 2016

   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  The I-Do Extension Field  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   The first implementation of NTPv4 was released in 2003.  NTPv4 is
   defined by RFC 5905 [RFC5905].  It contains a public-key security
   protocol, autokey, which is defined by RFC 5906 [RFC5906].  Until
   very recently, autokey has been the only defined "user" of NTP packet
   Extension Fields.  New proposals for extension fields are being
   written and there is currently no convenient way to learn if a remote
   instance of NTP supports any extension fields or not.  This proposal
   contains a method to tell a remote instance of NTP what we (are
   willing to admit we) support, and ask what they (are willing to admit
   they) support.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  The I-Do Extension Field

   If an incoming packet contains an unrecognized extension field, one
   of two things will happen.  While that extension field SHOULD be
   ignored, an implementation MAY choose to drop the entire packet.  If
   an extension field is present there ordinarily SHOULD be a MAC
   following the extension field.  Some extension fields are unable to
   be "signed" by a MAC, regardless of whether or not that MAC is a
   traditional MAC or an extension field MAC.

Stenn                    Expires April 26, 2017                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft         Network Time Protocol I-Do           October 2016
Show full document text