[ntpwg] Autokey refilihng - my point...
mayer at ntp.org
Sun Oct 25 22:36:50 UTC 2009
Todd Glassey wrote:
> Brian - my point in asking to advance the autokey draft is both based in
> getting NTP further along to its v4 standards status and also in getting
> the autokey component more formalized than 'an informational' status
> since its in use in production in many shops around the world, that is
> no longer appropriate. Autokey as it is implemented today works and is
> relied on, so we need to get what is out their today documented as an
> in-place accepted standard.
Advancing the NTP draft has nothing whatsoever to do with the Autokey
draft. The autokey *is* documented by the autokey draft. An
informational draft is much better than none at all. Getting the autokey
draft to proposed standard track has a *much* higher hurdle to pass than
informational and *requires* very serious security review. Since the
security side of autokey is very complex and there are many pages
devoted to it in the draft this will take a long time to review, have
questions answered, draft updated to reflect those questions and
answers, and so on. Don't expect a short period for IESG to approve such
a draft. The NTP draft, in the meantime, needs to proceed forward.
> If you want to make changes to the protocol itself that's fine but dont
> hold up acknowledging what's already in pervasive use in the world for
> secure NTP.
Pervasive use? I don't think so, but that's a matter of numbers and has
no affect whatsoever on the IETF. Noone has suggested a change to the
protocol itself, just finding references to the way something is done.
If you see a change of protocol, please state explicitly what it is.
Since autokey has already passed Working Group review, it would have to
be pulled back to the working group to change the protocol and then
resubmitted to IESG.
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
More information about the ntpwg