idnits 2.17.1 draft-stenn-ntp-i-do-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC5905], [RFC5906]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (October 23, 2016) is 2741 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5906 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Engineering Task Force H. Stenn 3 Internet-Draft Network Time Foundation 4 Intended status: Standards Track October 23, 2016 5 Expires: April 26, 2017 7 Network Time Protocol I-Do Extension Field 8 draft-stenn-ntp-i-do-02 10 Abstract 12 The first implementation of NTPv4 was released in 2003. NTPv4 is 13 defined by RFC 5905 [RFC5905]. It contains a public-key security 14 protocol, autokey, which is defined by RFC 5906 [RFC5906]. Until 15 very recently, autokey has been the only defined "user" of NTP packet 16 Extension Fields. New proposals for extension fields are being 17 written and there is currently no convenient way to learn if a remote 18 instance of NTP supports any extension fields or not. This proposal 19 contains a method to tell a remote instance of NTP what we (are 20 willing to admit we) support, and ask what they (are willing to admit 21 they) support. 23 Status of This Memo 25 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 26 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 28 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 29 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 30 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 31 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 34 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 35 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 36 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 38 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 26, 2017. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 43 document authors. All rights reserved. 45 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 46 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 47 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 48 publication of this document. Please review these documents 49 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 50 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 51 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 52 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 53 described in the Simplified BSD License. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 58 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 2. The I-Do Extension Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 1. Introduction 67 The first implementation of NTPv4 was released in 2003. NTPv4 is 68 defined by RFC 5905 [RFC5905]. It contains a public-key security 69 protocol, autokey, which is defined by RFC 5906 [RFC5906]. Until 70 very recently, autokey has been the only defined "user" of NTP packet 71 Extension Fields. New proposals for extension fields are being 72 written and there is currently no convenient way to learn if a remote 73 instance of NTP supports any extension fields or not. This proposal 74 contains a method to tell a remote instance of NTP what we (are 75 willing to admit we) support, and ask what they (are willing to admit 76 they) support. 78 1.1. Requirements Language 80 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 81 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 82 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 84 2. The I-Do Extension Field 86 If an incoming packet contains an unrecognized extension field, one 87 of two things will happen. While that extension field SHOULD be 88 ignored, an implementation MAY choose to drop the entire packet. If 89 an extension field is present there ordinarily SHOULD be a MAC 90 following the extension field. Some extension fields are unable to 91 be "signed" by a MAC, regardless of whether or not that MAC is a 92 traditional MAC or an extension field MAC. 94 0 1 2 3 95 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 96 +---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+ 97 | Field Type | Field Length | 98 +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ 99 | I-Do 1 | ... | 100 +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ 101 | I-Do N | Padding | 102 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ 104 NTP Extension Field: REFID Suggestion 106 Field Type: TBD (Recommendation for IANA: 0x0007 (I-Do, MAC 107 required), 0x2007 (I-Do, MAC OPTIONAL), 0x8007 (I-Do Response, MAC 108 required), 0xA007 I-Do Response, MAC OPTIONAL)) 110 Field Length: as needed 112 Payload: An enumeration of the suppported base Field Types, followed 113 by any padding, 0x0000, needed to fill the payload to the desired 114 32-bit boundary. 116 Example: A system that wants to advertise support for Autokey and 117 I-Do, sending to a system that wants to advertise support for I-Do, 118 NTS, and MAC-As-Extension-Field 120 0 1 2 3 121 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 122 +---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+ 123 | Field Type (0x2007) | Field Length (0x0008) | 124 +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ 125 | 0x0007 | 0x0002 | 126 +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ 128 NTP Extension Field: I-Do 130 0 1 2 3 131 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 132 +---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+ 133 | Field Type (0xA007) | Field Length (0x000a) | 134 +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ 135 | 0x0003 | 0x0004 | 136 +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ 137 | 0x0007 | 0x0000 | 138 +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ 140 NTP Extension Field: I-Do Response 142 The sender of any I-Do extension field MUST send an extension field 143 with a Field Type of 0x0007 (I-Do, MAC required) or 0x2007 (I-Do, MAC 144 OPTIONAL) and SHOULD include a paylod with any 0x0000 padding values 145 after enumerating the supported base Extension Field Types. If the 146 responding system recognizes the I-Do extension field, its response 147 MUST include an extension field with a Field Type of 0x8007 (I-Do 148 Response, MAC required) or 0xA007 (I-Do Response, MAC OPTIONAL), and 149 SHOULD include a paylod with any 0x0000 padding values after 150 enumerating the supported base Extension Field Types. 152 The following information is included here until it is specified in a 153 better location. If the Field Type does not have bit 0x2000 set, 154 there MUST be a MAC included later in the packet for this extension 155 field to be accepted. If the Field Type has bit 0x2000 set, the 156 presence of a MAC later in the packet is OPTIONAL. 158 Any system that receives an I-Do extension field as either an "offer" 159 or a "response" SHOULD scan the entire payload looking for nonzero 160 values that specify the capabilities of the remote association. 162 Any system that receives an I-Do "offer", 0x0007 or 0x2007, SHOULD 163 reply with an I-Do "response", 0x8007 or 0xA007. 165 Any system that sends an I-Do "offer" or "response" may send as few 166 or as many of its supported Field Types as it chooses. At any 167 subsequent time, either side may re-negotiate the list of supported 168 field types it is prepared to accept from the other system by sending 169 a new I-Do extension field. 171 The most-recently received I-Do list replaces any previous I-Do list. 173 3. IANA Considerations 175 This memo requests IANA to allocate NTP Extension Field Types: 177 0x0007 (I-DO) 179 0x2007 (I-DO, MAC OPTIONAL) 181 0x8007 (I-DO Response) 183 0xA007 (I-DO Response, MAC OPTIONAL) 185 and I-DO types: 187 0xFFFE (I-DO Leap Smear REFIDs) 189 0xFFFF (I-DO IPv6 REFID hash) 191 for this proposal. 193 4. Security Considerations 195 Additional information TBD 197 5. Normative References 199 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 200 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 201 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 202 . 204 [RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, 205 "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms 206 Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010, 207 . 209 [RFC5906] Haberman, B., Ed. and D. Mills, "Network Time Protocol 210 Version 4: Autokey Specification", RFC 5906, 211 DOI 10.17487/RFC5906, June 2010, 212 . 214 Author's Address 216 Harlan Stenn 217 Network Time Foundation 218 P.O. Box 918 219 Talent, OR 97540 220 US 222 Email: stenn@nwtime.org