{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\cocoartf1138\cocoasubrtf470
{\fonttbl\f0\fnil\fcharset0 HelveticaNeue;\f1\froman\fcharset0 Times-Roman;}
{\colortbl;\red255\green255\blue255;\red55\green55\blue55;\red255\green255\blue255;}
\margl1440\margr1440\vieww10800\viewh8400\viewkind0
\deftab720
\pard\pardeftab720\sl360

\f0\fs28 \cf2 \cb3 Joint TICTOC/NTP WG meeting\
\
TICTOC WG Status (Stein)\
3 drafts in progress\
mpls draft to be divided - control protocols to go to other groups\
MIB - 03 uploaded after blackout beleived to revolve everything\
individual submissions: 2 current, 4 expired\
is there anything we want to do with these documents?\
is IPSec mandatory?\
no webex meetings since IETF83\
\
ITU-T Q13/15 update (Stein)\
Meeting in finland June 2012\
Next meeting Sept 2012\
No one who attended June meeting was present\
Yaakov reviewed presentation from Stefan\
\
1588 over MPLS (Davari)\
Yaakov: Boundary clock for LE is different than ITU approach\
Transparent clocks at LER and LSR supported\
Plan to publish 03 after meeting\
Describe data plane only\
Other aspects move to more appropriate workgroups\
AD requests that it is more generic - support NTP and other sync protocols\
YS: How do we indicate what is encapsulated\
SD: There will be a shim to indicate the type\
YS: Is there going to be an index of all these drafts. Include an index \
in the appendix\
Questions for the group:\
Should control word be mandatory for PW? Requiring it makes things simpler\
KG: Why not make it mandatory\
SD: Some routers don't support it\
YS (individual): Being required for PWE so ok to make mandatory\
Must not use entropy level?\
Allow PHP?\
YS: Works over MPLS-TP but not over all networks\
How you handle packet that don't require correction field update. How \
does a router distinguish these?\
YS: LER needs to make the decision.\
Support p2mp LSBs? Useful for sync messages.\
YS: ITU is not using it.\
Should protection be supported? FRR? 1to1, one other options.\
YS: any protection is a bad idea\
Allow VCCV type 1-4?\
Questions will be sent to reflector.\
03 will be small because all signaling will be removed.\
Release 4 weeks from now. Need answers to above questions prior to \
release\
KO: Do we need to finish all be before releasing others\
SD: Others will be dependent on this. This is not dependent on others.\
\
MIB\
Technically completed for a year but still being revised\
03 uploaded today\
minor changes from 02\
added new transport type options\
03 respond to new comments and fix an error introduced in 02\
2 MIB doctors have reviewed\
Al Morton: likely to get MIB reviewed if you can demonstrate it compiles\
KO: there are multiple compilers\
Brian Haberman: ISG breakfast discussion of MIBs. Have you compiled? I will give a URL of reference compiler\
KO: Brian will send out link. Authors will compile. Last call if there are no issues.\
\
Security requirements (Mizrahi)\
working group adopted in November 2011\
addressed comments in 02\
added threat model\
added additional security implications (informational)\
Need more comments on drafts\
Proceed to WG last call\
Greg Dowd: definition of proventication - chain of trust. \
how do we clarify this requirement? current definition in autokey can't be proven.\
YS: injector vs. MIM.\
Tal: injector can't remove packets\
03 draft to be released in next month\
KO: start discussion on proventication. Ask for final comments. \
incorporate stefano's comments. goal: get this wrapped up prior to \
IETF85\
KO: what to do next. revisit drafts waiting on security requirements\
\
Autokey (Siebold)\
more secure specifications needed\
design paper to be presented at IETF85\
major differences: MAC and verification of authentication\
client attached public key to each NTP packet\
PKI infrastructure\
how to implement proventication?\
are alternatives to certificates useful\
GD: public keys are large. use a has to keep size reasonable.\
GD: how could pools of servers use this?\
DS: pools not considered\
YS: cryptography discussion. will read draft and comment.\
Dan (via jabber): would SHA-256 digest work\
GD: SHA-256 should work.\
GD: do you plan to do a security analysis\
GD: what's the impact on the network: bandwidth, backwards compatibility\
KO: very lomited use of autokey now. we have a small design team working\
 on this. thouse interested in joining should contact me. update both \
specification and implementation. bring some security expertise into \
discussion. please comment. plan a call to working group to accept as \
milestone.\
KO: current autokey is informational. new version is standards track\
\
NTP Control message draft\
Karen 0 updated and sent to KO but not published. comments addressed. \
will do one more call then last call.\
originally an appendix of RFC1305 that didn't get published\
\
need an editor for NTP extension for interleave\
\
Joint TICTOC/NTP WG meeting adjourned at 216p
\f1\fs24 \cf0 \cb1 \'a0\
\pard\pardeftab720
\cf0 \
}