Minutes for Joint NTP/TICTOC WG Meeting at IETF 101 - London Chairs: Karen O'Donoghue, Dieter Sibold (NTP), Yaakov Stein (TICTOC) Minutes by Yaakov. ======================================================================== Karen started the meeting asking for a jabber scribe (Sam Weiler volunteered) and a minute taker (Yaakov volunteered). She then noted the new Note Well. NTP AGENDA ======================================================================== The agenda was slightly modified to enable NTP Yang data model to be first, due to constraint of the presenter. NTP Yang data model (draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model) – Ankit (no slides) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A minor update was carried out before this meeting. An IF was added for optional features, port numbers to be changed, added xml examples. The draft is stable. More reviews are requested. Karen asked how many have read - only 1. Guidelines for Defining Packet Timestamps (draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps)- Tal (remote) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This audience of this draft is protocol designers. It suggests timestamp formats and gives guidelines if none of the existing ones suffices. Tal believes that he has addressed all comments. The draft now separates syntax from semantics, contains a discussion about leap seconds, and acquired a control field section. Tal asked whether it is worthwhile to split into 2 drafts (base and control field) in order to expedite publishing the base portion. Yaakov recommended that the draft should clarify the IEEE1588 version if it speaks of PTP timestamps. Yaakov stated that he preferred not to split. Suresh asked if Tal is aware of the work Greg Mirsky is doing in IPPM and MPLS (allowing 1588 or NTP timestamp formats). Yaakov answered that there are no contradictions. Yaakov asked if a time difference format is in scope. Tal’s connectivity dropped. Karen ask Tal to send a note to the mailing list and to first require additional feedback and secondly to ask if the WG would like to have this document splitted. Control Messages Protocol (draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds) - Brian ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The draft is very stable, captures all the commands in RFC 1305 and several new ones. Additions to the security section are pending. There was discussion on the mailing list on changing some of the commands. Brian clarified that the purpose of this draft is to document the existing commands, not to change them. Brian will upload a new version next week, and asked for WG LC. Karen agreed to go to WGLC. Message Authentication Code (draft-ietf-ntp-mac) – Aanchal (remote) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ There are 2 main changes: changing SHOULD to MUST in Replacement Recommendation section, and text addressing Tal’s comment on interoperating with old implementations. No further changes are needed. Karen: will go to WG LC in the next little while. NTS Hackathon – Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The goal was to demonstrate interop and to identify any remaining issues. There are now 3 NTS implementations. 1. Martin’s (C++14 for Windows/Linux on x86/ARM) 2. Daniel’s (Python) 3. Ostfalia students (C++11, but not yet ready for test) The hackathon used 3 Raspberry PIs, each with its own IP address, connecting over the Internet with Daniel’s implementation in Boston. Test 1: server in London client in Boston - small bugs fixed, NTS worked but NTP initially failed, but after the bug was fixed everything worked. Test 2 on Tuesday: client in London server in Boston. All in all 5 out of 6 tests were successful, 1 outstanding. Code is on GitHub, Martin’s code is under the Apache license. Yaakov noted that if Martin has an independent NTP implementation this could be useful in advancing NTP to full standard. Karen stated that this is not the only independent implementation, and that NTP will advance to full standard in the not too distant future. Karen – thanked participants and wants to repeat the effort in Montreal with more in-depth testing. Network Time Security for NTP (draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp) - Dieter ---------------------------------------------------------------------- First slide showed photo of Big Ben under construction! V11 was pushed out 1 week before the meeting. It includes 2 new sequence diagrams, renames section 5.7 to 6, and includes minor editorial changes. Section 7 has not been changed leaving the suggested cookie format non-normative (as there were no comments on this issue). Yaakov asked if this does not affect interoperability and Dieter explained that the server can choose any format and the client does not need to interpret it. Karen relayed from Brian in the jabber room “This Hackathon update deserves an RFC 7942 section being added to the NTS draft.” V12 will be submitted in a few weeks w/ updates based on hackathon results. After that WG LC. NTPv4 Extension Fields (draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields AKA 7822bis) – Harlan ------------------------------------------------------------------------- (remote, audio only, but fully dressed) Document was updated, joint work with Dave Mills, purely historical material removed. Jared asked what happens if adding the extensions leads to fragmentation, and Harlan replied that the “network superglue document” does not yet exist. Instead, one must make sure that one doesn’t exceed MTU, but there is no specific text on what to do if it exceeds. Jared said that we don’t want an NTP-specific path MTU discovery protocol. Harlan stated that in the implementation there will be an MTU parameter. Harlan continued that in the latest version he leaned everything up and changed the IANA tables. Questions that need to be decided are in square brackets. Karen: this draft is an individual submission, do we want to adopt? No opposition. Brian: is this an update to RFC 7822 or a bis version? Karen: will ask on list. Harlan: there remain open questions. Karen: the idea is that if we adopt as a WG draft then the WG will decide on all these issues. Sam: Thanks to Harlan. WG could decide on changes one at a time and create multiple documents, but if this will be a bis document then it is best to leave them all in a single draft. Karen asked Harlan to review the content of the four new extension field proposals, which will be discussed in a virtual interim. Harlan: draft-stenn-ntp-extended-information remedies the fact that there are no spare bits in the NTP format, for information such as TAI-UTC offset (some people use Autokey just for that!) and interleave mode. draft-stenn-ntp-mac-last-ef combines two proposals for avoiding ambiguity as to whether the "next" data is an extension field or a legacy MAC. draft-stenn-ntp-i-do provides a convenient way to learn if a remote NTP instance supports an extension fields or not. draft-stenn-ntp-suggest-refid is a backward-compatible way for a time source to tell its clients to use a nonce as REFID in order to avoid loops without divulging the IP address to potential attackers. In addition there is draft-ietf-ntp-refid-updates which addresses further shortcomings of the use of REFID, including the lack of a way to offer leap-smeared time. Karen: these are individual submissions, and we need comments from WG before moving forward Karen: there are other drafts that we won’t discuss, including draft-ietf-ntp-bcp (IESG), draft-ietf-ntp-data-minimization (ready for LC), draft-mlichvar-ntp-correction-field (blocked on resolving extension field issue), draft-mlichvar-ntp-interleaved-modes (ready for WG adoption), draft-aanchal-time-implementation-guidance (hasn’t been updated). TICTOC AGENDA: ========================================================================= Status: draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang and draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile are both ready for IESG. Enterprise profile had interop testing in IEEE. Synchronizing Internet Clocks (draft-alavarez-hamelin-tictoc-sic) Jose Alvarez-Hamelin Thanks for ISOC for sponsoring as fellow and to the WG for allowing to present. There are multiple applications for secure and accurate time over the Internet, and there are several approaches for supplying (NTP, PTP, TSC, GPS). From experimentation in Buenos Aires, minimum gating of RTT does not provide a stable value. The new approach is client-server, uses 1 packet per second, each packet with a deferred signature, in order to provide secure sub-1 ppm frequency over the public Internet. The software is on GitHub. Yaakov asked about goals and why this is new. Kyle asked for more information on the research behind this technique. Karen thanked the presenter. Karen: There will be a virtual interim next month (Karen will poll for scheduling). There are many open drafts – please read!