http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/985 <pre>Hi Kevin, Thank you for taking the time to go through this MIB. We did consider your comments, and they were addressed in -05 (the latest version, and the subject of the last call). I've gone through each of your comments below; it looks like we missed one, and decided against another, but the remainder have been done. The change history from the -05 draft reads: -05 Feb 13 Several changes in response to comments from Alun Luchuk and Kevin Gross: - Modified the use of wellKnownTransportTypes and wellKnownEncapsulationTypes - changed ptpbaseClockPortSyncOneStep to ptpbaseClockPortSyncTwoStep to match IEEE1588 semantics - Re-ordered textual conventions to be alphabetic - Changed some types from Integer32 to use defined textual conventions - various minor descriptive text changes In detail: Abstract: Add a bracketed reference to IEEE 1588-2008 - DONE Section 1: s</pre> Tim Frost 2013-05-17T08:33:22 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/984 <pre>No problem. I should have been a bit cleared in my message about progressing the document. Regards, Karen On 5/16/13 2:37 PM, Smiley, Russell wrote: </pre> Karen O'Donoghue 2013-05-16T18:40:42 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/983 <pre>Russell, You actually submitted comments on the Security Requirements document (not the MIB) after the close of the WGLC on that document. Yaakov and I discussed this, and we decided to proceed with the submission of the document to the IESG and to address those comments as part of the IETF last call process. This document has been around for a long time, and we wanted to proceed with getting it progressed. Regards, Karen On 5/16/13 1:17 PM, Smiley, Russell wrote: </pre> Karen O'Donoghue 2013-05-16T18:39:08 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/982 <pre>Apologies, my remarks below were intended to be directed to the security requirements draft, not the PTP MIB. Russell Smiley Principal Systems Engineer +1 613 592 0859 x1831 direct +1 613 322 9433 mobile -----Original Message----- From: tictoc-bounces&lt; at &gt;ietf.org [mailto:tictoc-bounces&lt; at &gt;ietf.org] On Behalf Of Smiley, Russell Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 1:18 PM To: Karen ODonoghue Cc: tictoc&lt; at &gt;ietf.org Subject: Re: [TICTOC] WGLC on draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-mib-05.txt I also submitted comments to V05 on the mailing list and have not received any acknowledgment as to whether they will be addressed or have been rejected. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tictoc/current/msg01387.html Thanks for your help. Russell Smiley Principal Systems Engineer +1 613 592 0859 x1831 direct +1 613 322 9433 mobile Integrated Device Technology, Canada Inc. 603 March Rd, Ottawa, Ontario Canada K2K 2M5 www.IDT.com NASDAQ: IDTI CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION: This email and any attachments thereto may contain private and </pre> Smiley, Russell 2013-05-16T18:37:45 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/981 <pre>MIB Authors, Could one of you address Kevin's comments please? Thanks, Karen On 5/16/13 1:08 PM, Kevin Gross wrote: _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list TICTOC&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc </pre> Karen O'Donoghue 2013-05-16T18:31:53 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/980 <pre>I also submitted comments to V05 on the mailing list and have not received any acknowledgment as to whether they will be addressed or have been rejected. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tictoc/current/msg01387.html Thanks for your help. Russell Smiley Principal Systems Engineer +1 613 592 0859 x1831 direct +1 613 322 9433 mobile Integrated Device Technology, Canada Inc. 603 March Rd, Ottawa, Ontario Canada K2K 2M5 www.IDT.com NASDAQ: IDTI CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION: This email and any attachments thereto may contain private and confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto. From: tictoc-bounces&lt; at &gt;ietf.org [mailto:tictoc-bounces&lt; at &gt;ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Gross Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 1:</pre> Smiley, Russell 2013-05-16T17:17:49 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/979 <pre>I submitted comments on v03 11 January ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tictoc/current/msg01331.html). Vinay indicated in a short message on 23 January the comments would be addressed in the next version ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tictoc/current/msg01333.html). v04 was published 31 January. I did not see any notes from the authors associated with that revision. A quick check of the v03-v04 diff shows evidence that not all my comments were directly addressed. Can I get a summary of how my comments were addressed? I'm fine if some of these were rejected but I would like to verify that they were given consideration. Kevin Gross +1-303-447-0517 Media Network Consultant AVA Networks - www.AVAnw.com &lt;http://www.avanw.com/&gt;, www.X192.org On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Karen O'Donoghue &lt;odonoghue&lt; at &gt;isoc.org&gt;wrote: _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list TICTOC&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc </pre> Kevin Gross 2013-05-16T17:08:57 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/978 <pre>The tictoc WG chairs have determined there is consensus to forward the document "Security Requirements of Time Protocols in Packet Switched Networks" (draft-ietf-tictoc-security-requirements-05.txt) to the IESG for approval. Regards, Karen and Yaakov </pre> Karen O'Donoghue 2013-05-16T15:44:45 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/977 <pre>This message initiates a two week TICTOC Working Group Last Call on advancing: Title : Precision Time Protocol Version 2 (PTPv2) Management Information Base Author(s) : Vinay Shankarkumar, Laurent Montini, Tim Frost, Greg Dowd Filename : draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-mib-05.txt Pages : 77 Date : 2013-02-25 http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-mib/?include_text=1 as a Standards Track RFC. Substantive comments and statements of support for advancing this document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial suggestions can be sent directly to the authors. This last call will end on 31 May 2013. </pre> Karen O'Donoghue 2013-05-16T15:41:35 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/976 <pre>We are researchers from different parts of the world and conducted a study on the world’s biggest bogus computer science conference WORLDCOMP ( http://sites.google.com/site/worlddump1 ) organized by Prof. Hamid Arabnia from University of Georgia, USA. We submitted a fake paper to WORLDCOMP 2011 and again (the same paper with a modified title) to WORLDCOMP 2012. This paper had numerous fundamental mistakes. Sample statements from that paper include: (1). Binary logic is fuzzy logic and vice versa (2). Pascal developed fuzzy logic (3). Object oriented languages do not exhibit any polymorphism or inheritance (4). TCP and IP are synonyms and are part of OSI model (5). Distributed systems deal with only one computer (6). Laptop is an example for a super computer (7). Operating system is an example for computer hardware Also, our paper did not express any conceptual meaning. However, it was accepted both the times without any modifications (and without any reviews) and we were invited to submit t</pre> hammondjohnson< at >hushmail.com 2013-04-27T17:52:14 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/975 <pre>Tal, Here are some comments on your draft. In general I find your idea of a framework for defining the necessary security support in timing protocols very helpful. I hope it will be a useful basis for the IEEE 1588 working group being convened when considering how to implement security functions in PTP. Section 5.1 [Comment] It would be good to have each requirement statement uniquely numbered to make it easy for implementors to reference the requirements directly. Section 5.1.3 [Comment] Not clear here, if authorization is implicitly included in the authentication requirement, or if it is implicitly excluded from the authentication requirement and is not addressed in 5.1.3. "(Requirement Level) Its low impact, i.e., in the absence of this requirement the protocol is only exposed to DoS" [Comment] Disagree. Absence of authentication of slaves may enable MITM attacks delaying delay_req packets and thereby distorting the delay_req packet arrival times and subsequent departure of delay_resp. The resulting</pre> Smiley, Russell 2013-04-25T17:55:12 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/974 <pre>Hi Karen, Yaakov, I guess WGLC has ended. As far as I am concerned, we are ready to proceed. Thanks, Tal. From: tictoc-bounces&lt; at &gt;ietf.org [mailto:tictoc-bounces&lt; at &gt;ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tal Mizrahi Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 4:50 PM To: tictoc&lt; at &gt;ietf.org; odonoghue&lt; at &gt;isoc.org; Yaakov Stein (yaakov_s&lt; at &gt;rad.com) Subject: [TICTOC] Updated TICTOC Security Requirements Hi, Following the comments received on the WGLC I updated the draft - mostly minor editorial updates. The most notable changes compared to draft 04: 1. I added some text in the introduction about the target audience of the document. 2. I changed "time synchronization protocols" to "time protocols", as this seems to be the common grounds of NTP and PTP, both of which end with a TP (Time Protocol). Seems like a fair compromise between Yaakov's suggestion and Kevin's (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tictoc/current/msg01382.html). The current draft can be found in: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tictoc-security-requirements-0</pre> Tal Mizrahi 2013-04-25T13:54:30 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/973 <pre>Hi, Following the comments received on the WGLC I updated the draft - mostly minor editorial updates. The most notable changes compared to draft 04: 1. I added some text in the introduction about the target audience of the document. 2. I changed "time synchronization protocols" to "time protocols", as this seems to be the common grounds of NTP and PTP, both of which end with a TP (Time Protocol). Seems like a fair compromise between Yaakov's suggestion and Kevin's (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tictoc/current/msg01382.html). The current draft can be found in: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tictoc-security-requirements-05 Thanks, Tal. _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list TICTOC&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc </pre> Tal Mizrahi 2013-04-25T13:49:51 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/971 <pre>I did not see a response from anyone. Is there a snag in this work or can I refer people to the copy in the email archive - http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tictoc/current/msg01356.html? Kevin Gross +1-303-447-0517 Media Network Consultant AVA Networks - www.AVAnw.com &lt;http://www.avanw.com/&gt;, www.X192.org On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Kevin Gross &lt;kevin.gross&lt; at &gt;avanw.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list TICTOC&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc </pre> Kevin Gross 2013-04-25T00:15:02 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/970 <pre>In case I was not clear in my previous response, I propose we resolve this by reusing terminology already used in authoritative documents and standards, as opposed to what we, as individuals, might argue (at length) is most correct and proper. If the authors want to go a different direction, I'm fine with that; it's an editorial issue as far as I'm concerned. Kevin Gross +1-303-447-0517 Media Network Consultant AVA Networks - www.AVAnw.com &lt;http://www.avanw.com/&gt;, www.X192.org On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Yaakov Stein &lt;yaakov_s&lt; at &gt;rad.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list TICTOC&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc </pre> Kevin Gross 2013-03-21T15:17:13 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/969 <pre>Kevin, I don't entirely agree. I can use PTP or NTP to distributed frequency without looking at the ToD (even if it is correct). So I would claim that they distribute timing, where by "timing" I mean time or frequency. What the protocols definitely don't do is synchronize. I guess one could claim that NTP does synchronize, since in addition to a protocol it specifies an algorithm for synchronizing a clock. But 1588 does not specify the control loop, and thus does no synchronization at all! Y(JS Yaakov (J) Stein CTO T: +972-3-645-5389, +972-2-588-9159 | F: +972-3-647-5924 | yaakov_s&lt; at &gt;rad.com&lt;mailto:yaakov_s&lt; at &gt;rad.com&gt; RAD Data Communications Ltd., 24 Raoul Wallenberg St., Tel-Aviv 69719, Israel | www.rad.com&lt;http://www.rad.com&gt; | www.raddata.blogspot.com From: Kevin Gross [mailto:kevin.gross&lt; at &gt;avanw.com] Sent: 18 March, 2013 17:48 To: Yaakov Stein Cc: tictoc&lt; at &gt;ietf.org; Tal Mizrahi Subject: Re: [TICTOC] TICTOC Security Requirements "Timing distribution protocols" is flawed because protocols distribute time</pre> Yaakov Stein 2013-03-21T08:41:43 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/968 <pre>Can we get this draft submitted to the I-D system. I'd like to direct some more eyeballs at it and that's cumbersome to do as an e-mail attachment. Kevin Gross +1-303-447-0517 Media Network Consultant AVA Networks - www.AVAnw.com &lt;http://www.avanw.com/&gt;, www.X192.org On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Karen O'Donoghue &lt;kodonog&lt; at &gt;pobox.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list TICTOC&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc </pre> Kevin Gross 2013-03-18T19:41:56 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/967 <pre>"Timing distribution protocols" is flawed because protocols distribute time, not timing. "Time synchronization protocols" is flawed because the protocols synchronize clocks; only god synchronizes time. NTP defines itself through self-reference. 1588 seems to get it right, "IEEE standard for a precision *clock synchronization protocol *for..." On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Yaakov Stein &lt;yaakov_s&lt; at &gt;rad.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list TICTOC&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc </pre> Kevin Gross 2013-03-18T15:47:48 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/966 <pre>The following is my review of the 04 version of this document. (Actually I originally mistakenly reviewed 03 and only afterward went over this version. I was pleased that almost all of my comments were obsoleted by 04!) General I personally prefer "timing distribution protocols" to "time synchronization protocols", as I think the protocol distributes the timing (time and/or frequency) while the specific sync algorithm performs the synchronization. General nit : you have a lot of strange spaces near anchors that are probably due to some automatic mechanism For example "Section 5 ." -&gt; "Section 5." (twice) "(Section 3.2.2 )" -&gt; "(Section 3.2.2)", etc. etc. etc. (I guess this is a Microsoft Word artifact) Section 2.1 requirements that every security mechanism should comply to -&gt; requirements with which every security mechanism should comply Section 2.4 I believe that "clock" means master clock OR intermediate clock OR slave clock. Why only PTP intermediate clock. And why is the definition of cl</pre> Yaakov Stein 2013-03-18T14:37:19 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/965 <pre>Dear all, Tal, Tal had a good question on whether the hash-digest computed was an integrity check value. Instead of the hash digest he had suggested alternate methods for the same. I guess I forgot what I wrote up in the draft. Just to make it clear the innermost label which is the hash digest computed on the first 128 or 64 byte portion of the payload which is binary anded with an arbitrary bit pattern known to both PEs in the topology , serves as an added binary pattern which has to be guessed by the intruder intending to spoof the packet into the VPN's PE onto the CE. Thus the effective label space that has to be guessed by the intruder is the label for that time slice and the binary pattern computed on the payload (result of the hash-digest ANDed with the arbitrary bit pattern). This makes it essentially a 40 bit label space. The hash-digest was not intended to be a ICV. It could serve as an ICV as well though come to think of it. Since the binary pattern exchanged through the control plane is not k</pre> Balaji venkat Venkataswami 2013-03-13T03:19:38 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/964 <pre>Go Yaakov Thanks for your comments. I will incorporate them in next version and will send you for review before publishing so we can go for last call in draft-05 Regards, Shahram On Mar 11, 2013, at 8:26 PM, "Yaakov Stein" &lt;yaakov_s&lt; at &gt;rad.com&gt; wrote: </pre> Shahram Davari 2013-03-12T05:53:40 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.ietf.tictoc