Skip to main content

Minutes interim-2019-ntp-02: Wed 15:30
minutes-interim-2019-ntp-02-201905291530-00

Meeting Minutes Network Time Protocols (ntp) WG
Title Minutes interim-2019-ntp-02: Wed 15:30
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2019-07-25

minutes-interim-2019-ntp-02-201905291530-00
NTP WG INTERIM MEETING, 2019-05-29
==================================

Participants
------------

Karen O'Donoghue, Dieter Sibold, Thomas Peterson, Tal Mizrahi, Danny Mayer,
Denis Reilly, Harlan Stenn, Miroslav Lichvar, Kristof Teichel, F. Gont, Watson
Ladd

1.  Administrative and Agenda Bashing

        - No agenda bashing
        - No objection to record the meeting
        - Tal: Slides are not online yet

2.  TICTOC quick document status

        - YANG data model is published as RFC 8575
        - IEEE 1588 Enterprise Profile is submitted to the IESG.
        - After publication of the Enterprise Profile the TICTOC WG will be
        closed

3.  NTP quick document status
        - BCP is in Editor Queue
        - MAC draft is in Auth 48
        - Shepard writeup for the drafts NTS for NTP und Guidelines for
        Defining Packet
          Timestamps are in preparation
        - Draft YANG Data Model for NTP in Yang Doctor review

4.  Discussion on documents (working group and individual) that have been
updated

        - Interleave Mode
                - Miroslav: updated a new version. Changes in request of the
                last meeting.
                  Two paragraphs have been changes. Ready to be advanced. No
                  questions.
                - Summary: this draft is going to the IESG

        - Roughtime
                - nobody of the authors are online

        - Correction field and Short Extension field
                - Miroslav: No changes to both documents
                - Summary (Karen): will leave it on the list and looking for
                the progress of the
                  various extension field draft

        - Port Randomization
          Discussion:
                - F Gont: The usage of port 123 of NTP traffic is not necessary.
                  Various research has found that the usage of predictable port
                  number is problematic and should be avoided.
                - F Gont: This I-D will make NTP compliant to BCP 156.
                - Danny: Presumably this draft improves security. It does not
                improve
                  security
                - F Gont: An attacker has to guess what port is in use.
                Randomization will make
                  this more difficult
                - Danny: does not accept the arguments
                - Karen: any other comments
                - Gont: this is the same discussion as with other protocols
                years ago - Gont: the problem applies to to all transport
                protocols - Karen further comments? - Miroslav: this is useful
                and should be adopted - Karen: any other question - Kristof:
                should be adopted to be discussed - F Gont: most NTP
                implementation already randomize the port number. - Danny:
                Problem with a NTP instance that is a client and a server. What
                do you
                  gain?
                - Harlan: the client can already use other port number
                - F Gont: It is not good practice to leave this decision to the
                implementation - Danny: there are not only four variable that
                identify an association but five - F Gont: This is ture of the
                application layer. I speak about the transport
                  layer. This draft improves security on the transport layer
                - Watson: we had issues because of the fixed port number 123.
                DDoS attacks - Karen (without the chair's hat): we need to have
                better reasoning for adopting
                  this draft.
                - F Gont: this draft follows the work of the transport area and
                which is
                  formulated as a BCP. The Transport area should be involved.
                - Karen: the argument that there is a BCP is very compelling.
                We should seriously
                  consider to adopt it.
                - Danny: just because there is a BCP it does not apply to any
                protocol. - Karen: That true, but we need to consider the BCP
                and have to formulate that
                  it does not apply to NTP.
                - F Gont: you need to make a good argument that the BCP does
                not apply for NTP - Summary (Karen): we need to consider the
                BCP and have to decide later if we
                  adopt this draft.


        - Roughtime
                - Watson: Usage of MJD for leap second issues, some other
                changes, ... - Karen: further question? - Discussion about the
                need to consider delay attacks and  bounded RTT in the
                  draft (Tal, Watson, Kristof)
                - Summary (Karen): Please, think about this and discuss it on
                the mailing list



5.  AOB (Any Other Business?)