# Network Time Protocols (ntp) working group @ IETF 116   {#network-time-protocols-ntp-working-group--ietf-116}

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

## Agenda   {#agenda}

### Administrative and Agenda Bashing (Chairs)   {#administrative-and-agenda-bashing-chairs}

No agenda bashing

### NTP/TICTOC WG Document Status Review/Update (Chairs)   {#ntptictoc-wg-document-status-reviewupdate-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)   {#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][1])? 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   {#ntpv5}

#### Use cases and requirements (James)   {#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)   {#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   {#network-time-security}

#### NTS deployment (Christer)   {#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)   {#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)   {#ntp-over-ptp-miroslav}

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

### Roughtime (Marcus)   {#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   {#aob}

#### Way Forward   {#way-forward}

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

Adjourned: 9:00 UTC



[1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8633/