Subject: [ntpwg] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-ntp-extension-field-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 04:31:41 -0800

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ntp-extension-field-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-extension-field/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

If you do revisit the MACing setup, (as indicated
in the response to the secdir review [1]), I hope
you maybe consider taking some input on this from
security folk - having a scheme where essentially
random parts of the packet are/are-not protected
by a MAC isn't necessarily a good way to go. I do
totally agree that getting away from depending on
the length to figure out the algorithm is a thing
that definitely should be done, and moving to use
modern ciphers as well of course;-)

   [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06329.html

_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg