Network Time Protocols (ntp) working group @ IETF 118

Monday, 6 November, 2023
15:30 - 17:00 CET (14:30 - 16:00 UTC)
Amsterdam

Draft Agenda

1. Administrative and Agenda Bashing (Chairs) (5 min)

• Karen presents Note Well
• No agenda bashing
• Khronos is in the RFC-Editor Queue

2. NTP/TICTOC WG Document Status Review/Update (Chairs) (5min)

• Enterprise need one more round to be past forward

3. Updating the NTP Registries (5 min)

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/118/materials/slides-118-ntp-an-update-on-the-updating-the-registries-draft

• Some minor points still has to be resolved
• Shall be resolved within one week
• Erik asked for designated experts

4. Hackathon Update (10 min)

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/118/materials/slides-118-ntp-ietf-hackathon-ntp

• David presents slides
• Topics NTPv5 with and without NTS

5. NTPv5 Requirements (10 min)

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv5-requirements/

James

• Last version 2 month ago
• Changes included from Miroslav and others
• No feedback up to now
• Doug: Last sentence in Sec. 4.5 (smearing protocols). Can probably
  not be met.
• James: There is no general specification for smearing. But different
  common approaches are out there. The requirement document should
  require a to specify an approach for smearing.
• Doug: That is a case in which the requirement draft and NTPv5 draft
  are not in agreement.
• Doug: Minor. Suggest to rename Sec. 5 in Out-of-Scope Topics.
• Doug: In general: this requirement is going in the right direction.
  It is improving with each version. I'd support it.
• Karen: Any more comments? Is this document ready for WGLC?
• Eric: Sec. 5.3: Mode 6 SHOULD not be supported. Should this be a
  MUST NOT?
• Karen: I know this topic caused intense discussion. Any opinion?
• Eric: We also specified a YANG management module. We could take
  this.
• Doug: Would be good if this group would decide on the leap smearing
  stuff. Do we want to have a enumerated list of supported algorithms?
• David: I'm willing to do draft a specification on few of the most
  common smearing approaches.
• Doug: I think this is useful.
• James: I'm willing to help with that.
• Karen: Anyone thinks the draft is not ready to WGLC?
• David: Do we have enough consensus on the mode question?
• Karen: The WGLC is an opportunity to solve that.
• Karen: Shall we made a consensus call on the mode questions?
• James: My understanding from last IETF meeting. Other modes than
  client-Server may be done but would need to have contributions.
• Karen: Right. The core mode is server-client. Other modes may be
  added but for this we need contributions.
• No one opposed to WGLC for the requirements draft

6. NTPv5 Protocol Specification (15 min)

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv5/

Miroslav:
last version

• Introduced requirements from the requirements draft
• More text on leap seconds and timescales
• Leap smearing changes (expressing as a leap smeared timescale)
• Changes to correction field handling for TCs. Clients shall verify
  the corrections in order minimize MITM attacks.

• Question of draft negotiation

• Karen: Several more contribution are needed to advance the document.
  @Miroslav: can you send a message to the mailing list with the
  topics that are still open?

• Doug: Please define root delay and root dispersion. The definition
  should be in the latest version of NTP.
• Miroslav: These values are described in the document; is the current
  definition insufficient?
• Doug: Will check again and contact you.
• Doug: NTPv5 with NTPv4 negotiation. That is ok. We would be good to
  state the versions earlier than 4 are out of scope.
• Doug: Little more discussion on correction field and security. Maybe
  a second mechanism.
• Miroslav: Think, there is no need to secure this field. Impact on
  security is minor; like a MITM doing a delay attack
• Doug: Good point. Maybe some language about heuristic checks.
• Miroslav: The documents already contains some checks on the client
  side.
• Doug: Document is going in the right direction.
• Karen: Next step are to add contributions to missing parts. Reviews
  are welcomed.
• Karen: The document is not yet ready for WGLC
• Karen: Thanks for Mirsolav, David, and Tommy for the draft
  implementation.

7. Roughtime (5 min)

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-roughtime/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-roughtime-ecosystem/

Christer

• Goal of roughtime is primary to solve the bootstrap problem.
• Light weighted secured time protocol which can be used by embedded
  system that are to small to do TLS.
• Based on a hard coded list of servers which are be trusted.
• Can be used for syncing IoT devices.
• Maybe an NTP extension for Roughtime.

• Roughtime can learn from Khronos and vice versa.

• Karen: -03 version of the draft is available. Please comment!

8. NTP over PTP (5 min)

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-over-ptp/

Miroslav: new version with

• Improved introduction with better explanation of key differences
  between NTP and PTP.
• Added support for PTP One-Step and E2E TC
• A new NTP extension field for the correction field
• Karen: Thanks, any comments?
• Karen: What is the maturity of the draft?
• Miroslav: Type of the necessary TLV of PTP. How to get an identifier
  for the TLV from the IEEE?
• Doug: Possible to use a profile specific TLV which would not need
  IEEE approval. There is already an organization number for the IETF
  by IANA. We can add to that the TLV number. Information can be found
  in the latest version of IEEE 1588.
• Karen We get organizational id from IANA and add to that our own TLV
  number?
• Doug: Yes
• Karen: IEEE need not to be involved?
• Doug: Correct.
• Miroslav: with that resolved I think it is ready for WGLC
• Karen: WG, please read and comment!

9. NTS for PTP (5 min)

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-langer-ntp-nts-for-ptp-05

Martin:

• Mainly polishing the language.

• Currently, I'm working on a implementation of the draft. First test
  in about 3 month.

• Karen: Do you have a rough time table to finish the draft?

• Martin: Within the next 6 month.

10. AOB and Way Forward (5 min)

• Next IETF in Brisbane
• Planning one or two interims before IETF 119
• Adjourned 16:20