I think what we will do is implement the new "legacy" auth protocol as soon
as Daniel feels comfortable with it, and implement new new secure time
protocol on, again, as soon as Daniel feels comfortable and then delivers
the code.
Dropping support for the legacy legacy MD5 method is not on our roa
How stable is their ID?
How much effort will it be to add it to NTPsec?
My next strawman proposal that we add it NTPsec as soon as convenient, but
make it an option for now.
..m
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:40 AM Mark Atwood
wrote:
> Ok, thanks for the update.
>
> ..m
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 a
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 03:00:42PM -0800, Hal Murray wrote:
>
> fallenpega...@gmail.com said:
> > How hard would the following be?
> > Just go ahead and add SHA256 to NTPsec then Write an I-D modifying the NTP4
> > protocol documenting it. then Write a patch to NTP classic for it.
> > (yes, I know
fallenpega...@gmail.com said:
> How hard would the following be?
> Just go ahead and add SHA256 to NTPsec then Write an I-D modifying the NTP4
> protocol documenting it. then Write a patch to NTP classic for it.
> (yes, I know, icky code)
I think you are overlooking how long it takes to update t
Ok, thanks for the update.
..m
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:38 AM Daniel Franke wrote:
> Sharon and Aanchal are already working on a better proposal and have
> an I-D for it. The new MAC function for legacy authentication
> ("legacy" as opposed to NTS) is going to be AES-CMAC.
>
> On 1/27/17, Mar
Sharon and Aanchal are already working on a better proposal and have
an I-D for it. The new MAC function for legacy authentication
("legacy" as opposed to NTS) is going to be AES-CMAC.
On 1/27/17, Mark Atwood wrote:
> How hard would the following be?
>
> Just go ahead and add SHA256 to NTPsec
> t
How hard would the following be?
Just go ahead and add SHA256 to NTPsec
then
Write an I-D modifying the NTP4 protocol documenting it.
then
Write a patch to NTP classic for it. (yes, I know, icky code)
..m
___
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://
