Network Time Protocols (ntp) working group - June 2024 Virtual Interim

Thursday, 06 June 2024
17:00 - 18:30 UTC
(via meetecho - link TBS)

https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-interim-2024-ntp-03-ntp?view

Draft Agenda

1. Administrative and Agenda Bashing (Chairs)

• Karen did the administrative stuff
• No agenda bashing

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

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries/

• Went to IESG
• Need some additional information

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile/

• Went to the IESG and was discussed at the last Telechat
• An update had been posed

3. NTP over PTP - Revised WGLC Results

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

• WGLC has been issued
• Discussion between NTP/IETF and IEEE about what the NTP/IETF can
  specify
• Miroslav has updated the draft with suggestions from the PTP
  WG@IEEE. The new document will be submitted to the IESG at the end
  of the week if nobody files a objections.
• Note: Participation at IEEE working groups is not open fpr the
  public. However access can be granted and documents can be provided
  if necessary. Contact Karen or Dieter.

4. NTPv5 Requirements - WGLC Results

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

• WGLC is ambigious
• Dieter: Requirements language is used extensively for an
  informational draft. Usage of MUST should be evaluated.
• Chairs intend to discuss this also with the AD
• James: wants to consider usage of requirements language only case by
  case
• James: This draft is mentioned as a milestone in the charter.
• Karen: we will find a way to move this forward together with the AD

5. NTPv5 Protocol Specification

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

• Editorial changes
• Discussion on the authentication messages
• David will provide an update
• Miroslav will submit a new version before IETF 120
• David: first implementations are working without problem. The design
  seems to be ok

6. Roughtime

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

• Watson: will upload a new draft with small changes before IETF 120.
  Please provide comments.

7. NTS for PTP - Call for Adoption

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

• Martin: Is working on the implementations. He has some notes about
  necessary changes to the document. He intends to shorten the
  document.
• Martin: Regarding the current discussion. We think that we can
  secure PTP on the basis of the authentication TLV; however, this is
  not without its problems.
• David: Don't see a good way to work on the basis of the current
  autentication TLV. BMCA can be attacked quite easily.
• Martin: we can protect packet exchange. This will not solve any
  problem but will increase security.
• David: Protection individual messages is not enough. The logical
  functions should also be protected.
• Kristof: Do understand that it feels bad to increase security a bit
  and advertise this later on. The same thing with GNSS; but it is
  still good to have signatures on the messages.
• Miroslav: It is always possible to have NTP service in order to
  protect against delay attacks.
• Karen: 2019 IEEE 1588 specification the Security Annex has 4 prongs
  because the group didn't find the one approach which solved all
  problems. NTS for PTP is probably also a piece to enhance security
  of PTP. We cannot change the basic approach in the IETF.
• Dieter: The introduction of a section clarifying the objectives of
  the document would be helpful.
• Martin: Agree to introduce a goal's section.
• Kristof: In security subgroup of P1588 and also in Kristof focus was
  already protecting the message exchange.
• Karen: a call between IETF and IEEE on security architecture on 20th
  June, 1600 UTC.

8. AOB and Way Forward

• Hackathon in Vancouver?
  • Possible for Watson for Roughtime
  • Karen: will issue a call in the mailing list