Skip to main content

Minutes IETF116: ntp: Tue 08:00
minutes-116-ntp-202303280800-00

Meeting Minutes Network Time Protocols (ntp) WG
Date and time 2023-03-28 08:00
Title Minutes IETF116: ntp: Tue 08:00
State Active
Other versions markdown
Last updated 2023-04-03

minutes-116-ntp-202303280800-00

Network Time Protocols (ntp) working group @ IETF 116

Tuesday, 28 March @ 8:00 UTC
Room: G412-G413

Agenda

Administrative and Agenda Bashing (Chairs)

No agenda bashing

NTP/TICTOC WG Document Status Review/Update (Chairs)

  • Interleave Modes deferred to NTPv5
  • NTP Registries in AD review
  • Enterprise Profile for PTP (shepherd writeup)
  • Khronos (Publication requested)

Addressing GNSS TESLA Synchronization Vulnerability (Jason)

Presentation:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/116/materials/slides-116-ntp-addressing-gnss-tesla-synchronization-vulnerability

Discussion:

  • David: How much is already covered NTP BCP (RFC 8633)? It is
    best practice not to leak $t_1$.
  • David: Data minimization in the BCP as well as in NTS addresses the
    privacy issue. The concern in this context is acceptance of
    forgeries. That deserves an own paragraph.
  • Karen: Are you willing to writeup what you need and send it to the
    WG?
  • David: NTPv5 will not provide transmit timestamps. Can this work
    wait until NTPv5 is finished?
  • Jason: what is is the timeline for NTPv5?
  • Karen. Good question
  • Jason: IT would be nice to have this in a standard within the next
    two to three years. The intention of the WG will be helpful for the
    interaction with the regulators.
  • David: The data Minimization draft covers what Jason needs. It was
    very close to be published. I'm wondering why it was abandoned.
  • Karen: There was some opposite positions to it which we never were
    able to resolve. We can resurrect it; it would be a good starting
    point for Jason.
  • Karen: Please, contact the authors; set the ntp-chairs in cc.
  • Marcus: NTS authors had a off-list discussion with Jason. We agreed
    that there is nothing wrong with NTS. Clarified that sending $t_1$
    can cause harm. Daniel has been active in the discussion with Jason.
    He is very positive to resurrect the Data Minimization draft. We can
    involve Aanchal as well. I can try to inform her.
  • Eric: Is the data Minimization draft sufficient or is there extra
    staff and work that will be required?
  • Jason: there is one more other thing. The draft should add a
    additional requirement for the client. The time between time request
    must not be periodic.

NTPv5

Use cases and requirements (James)

  • Karen: This draft is ready for WGLC. Please send comments
  • David: WBLC should be done after the two consensus calls suggested
    by James.
  • Karen: Agree. We will issue the consensus calls first.

NTPv5 specification (Miroslav)

  • Miroslav: The new version contains some editorial and two technical
    changes.
  • Miroslav: The technical changes are a new version field and an
    extension field that provide offset between to time scales
  • David: Do you have any updates o other implementation of your draft?
  • Miroslav: not to my knowledge
  • Karen: Might plan a hackathon event for IETF 117.
  • Karen the next version will be a wg document

Network Time Security

NTS deployment (Christer)

Presentation:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/116/materials/slides-116-ntp-around-the-world-with-nts

Discussion

  • Miroslav: did you look of how many request per IP address.
  • Christer: 99% of the IP addresses are making one or two requests
    (maybe some behind a NAT)
  • Karen: How many unique addresses?
  • Christer: 5 to 20 Mill per days
  • Christer: User is probably not Chrony nor ntpsec but a custom client
  • Christer: 500 request/second (currently)

NTS for PTP specification (Martin)

Presentation:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/116/materials/slides-116-ntp-network-time-security-for-the-precision-time-protocol

Discussion:

  • David: do you plan to provide a section about the security goals and
    security model?
  • Martin: currently, the consolidation of the currents draft are on
    the agenda

NTP over PTP (Miroslav)

  • Miroslav: some small technical changes (sequenceID is now required)

Roughtime (Marcus)

  • Marcus: Watson and Marcus do intend to submit a update of this
    draft.
  • Marcus: Got a couple of comments just recently. Roughtime does not
    use network byte order. That was always the case. Is implemented in
    various implementations. Hard to change.
  • Marcus: Christer and I are interested in a hackathon at IETF 117.

AOB

Way Forward

  • We plan to have one or two interims before IETF 117

Adjourned: 9:00 UTC