Subject: [Ntp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-ntp-port-randomization-02.txt

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 15:16:32 +0100

Folks,

We have posted a new revision of the ntp port randomization I-D. It
contains a number of improvements based on the recent discussion, along
with an analysis of a number of considerations surrounding port
randomization.

It is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-ntp-port-randomization-02.txt

We don't expect this rev to be perfect, but do we think this one is
ready for the wg to make a decision regarding whether to adopt this
document as a wg item.

P.S.: If there's anything you think we have missed, please do let us know.

Thanks!

Cheers,
Fernando

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-gont-ntp-port-randomization-02.txt
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 09:51:37 -0700
From: [email-masked]
To: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>, Guillermo Gont
<[email-masked]>

A new version of I-D, draft-gont-ntp-port-randomization-02.txt
has been successfully submitted by Fernando Gont and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:		draft-gont-ntp-port-randomization
Revision:	02
Title:		Port Randomization in the Network Time Protocol Version 4
Document date:	2019-07-04
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		10
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-ntp-port-randomization-02.txt
Status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gont-ntp-port-randomization/
Htmlized:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-ntp-port-randomization-02
Htmlized:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gont-ntp-port-randomization
Diff:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-gont-ntp-port-randomization-02

Abstract:
   The Network Time Protocol can operate in several modes.  Some of
   these modes are based on the receipt of unsolicited packets, and
   therefore require the use of a service/well-known port as the local
   port number.  However, in the case of NTP modes where the use of a
   service/well-known port is not required, employing such well-known/
   service port unnecessarily increases the ability of attackers to
   perform blind/off-path attacks.  This document formally updates
   RFC5905, recommending the use of port randomization for those modes
   where use of the NTP service port is not required.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

---

From: "Dieter Sibold" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 00:58:04 +0200

Hi Fernando,
many thanks for the update of your draft. I have the following comments:

- Sec 1, third paragraph, first sentence. From my point of view the 
sentence is ambiguous. Do you want to express that BCP 156 is formally 
updating RFC 5905? I thought this is the intension of this draft. Maybe 
this could be formulated more precisely.

- Sec 3.2, third paragraph, second sentence: I suppose you mean: '... 
that the clock selection and ...' and not '... that the clock select and 
...'.

- Sec 4. I would appreciate if this section would contain a comparison 
of the specification language between RFC 5905 and the proposed new 
language.  This would make it easier for the reader to see the changes 
you introduce.

- Sec 3.2, second paragraph: that the synchronization of the two 
system's clocks may result in a different clock value is a priori not 
very surprising. It is worth mentioning if the two systems are in the 
same network. I suppose this is what you mean. If yes, please clarify.

Greetings
Dieter

Dieter Sibold
[email-masked]

On 6 Jul 2019, at 16:16, Fernando Gont wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 20:27:53 +0100

Hello, Dieter,

Thanks for your email!

> this could be formulated more precisely.

No. What I am saying that there is a BCP on this topic, and the NTP spec
goes against it. So our draft is meant to align the NTP spec with the
existing BCP on the topic. Will tweak the text to make it more clear.

> that the clock selection and ...' and not '... that the clock select and

Yes. Will fix this.

> language.  This would make it easier for the reader to see the changes

Point taken. Will update such that it says "this: [..] is replaced with
this:".

> same network. I suppose this is what you mean. If yes, please clarify.

Yes, that's what we meant. We will address this in the next rev.

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492