http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://comments.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://comments.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://comments.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://comments.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://comments.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://comments.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://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/959 <pre>Folks, There will be a joint meeting of the IETF TICTOC and NTP working groups tomorrow, 12 March 2013 at 1520-1650 EDT (1920 - 2050 UTC). We had to swamp time slots, and we only have 1.5 hours. We will need to be efficient in our use of meeting time. The agenda and most of the slides along with links for the audio stream and jabber chat room are already online at: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/tictoc/agenda For remote participation, we will be using the audio stream and jabber chat capabilities as we have in the past. Additional details on remote participation are available at: https://www.ietf.org/meeting/86/remote-participation.html Regards, Karen _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list TICTOC&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc </pre> Karen O'Donoghue 2013-03-11T17:39:01 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/958 <pre>http://www.bach-edv.de/bdofm/gnakgu.hbjxyjkp _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list TICTOC&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc </pre> Alexander Vainshtein 2013-03-11T13:08:59 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/949 <pre>Hi Shahram, Manav, Thanks for tolerating my exhausting comments. :) I believe in draft 04 you addressed most of the major issues I raised. I am quoting below some of my comments about draft 03 that I believe are still not addressed in draft 04. I am sure most of them are just a slip, but if you disagree with some of them I will appreciate if you can respond. Thanks, Tal. Quoting comments about draft 03 that were not fully addressed (quoting from http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tictoc/current/msg01326.html): 1. The IEEE 1588 uses the term "port". Each PTP "port" has a state, which can be master, slave, or passive. The state is determined according to the BMC algorithm. The BMC algorithm determines whether a port is a slave or a master based on the announce messages received through this port. In the current draft, I assume a "port" is in fact defined by a specific timing LSP (corresponding to a specific peer BC/OC), and the set of Announce messages received through it. This implies that Anno</pre> Tal Mizrahi 2013-02-26T14:52:58 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/944 <pre>Here is a first cut at a draft of a PTP profile foe enterprise networks. Any feedback/suggestions would be much appreciated. I enclose both a MS Word version and a pure text version, since I used the Joe Touch's template. //Doug TICTOC Working Group D. Arnold Internet Draft Symmetricom Intended status: Stadards Track H. Gerstung Expires: October 25, 2013 Meinberg April 25, 2013 Enterprise Profile for the Precise Time Protocol With Mixed Multicast and Unicast Messages draft-ietf-tictoc-PTPenterpri</pre> Doug Arnold 2013-02-25T21:52:09 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/942 <pre> This message initiates a two week TICTOC Working Group Last Call on advancing: Title : Security Requirements of Time Synchronization Protocols in Packet Switched Networks Author(s) : Tal Mizrahi Filename : draft-ietf-tictoc-security-requirements-04.txt Pages : 32 Date : 2013-02-07 http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tictoc-security-requirements/ as an Informational 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 12 March 2013. I realize this WGLC comes right before the IETF; however, this document has been around for a long time, and it is my hope that this can be done expeditiously. Regards, Karen Abstract: As time synchronization protocols are becoming increasingly common and widely deployed, concern about their exposure to various security threats is increasing. This document defines a set of security requirements for time syn</pre> Karen O'Donoghue 2013-02-25T11:41:36 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/940 <pre> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Timing over IP Connection and Transfer of Clock Working Group of the IETF. Title : Transporting Timing messages over MPLS Networks Author(s) : Shahram Davari Amit Oren Manav Bhatia Peter Roberts Laurent Montini Filename : draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-04.txt Pages : 36 Date : 2013-02-22 Abstract: This document defines the method for transporting Timing messages such as PTP and NTP over an MPLS network. The method allows for the easy identification of these PDUs at the port level to allow for port level processing of these PDUs in both LERs and LSRs. The basic idea is to transport Timing messages inside dedicated MPLS LSPs. These LSPs only carry timing messages and possibly Control and Management packets, but they do no</pre> internet-drafts< at >ietf.org 2013-02-23T07:22:33 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/936 <pre>I have a couple synchronization-related drafts nearing completion in AVTCORE. Fresh revisions are available. Any additional review from members of this group would be appreciated. Please post any comments to avt&lt; at &gt;ietf.org. Please let me know if you've reviewed even if you don't have comments; evidence of additional eyeballs will help move things along in AVTCORE. 1. Fixes an RTP bug when using UTC as a reference clock - http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second/ 2. SDP signaling of reference clock source including various IEEE 1588 flavors and parameters - http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc/ Kevin Gross +1-303-447-0517 Media Network Consultant AVA Networks - www.AVAnw.com &lt;http://www.avanw.com/&gt;, www.X192.org _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list TICTOC&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc </pre> Kevin Gross 2013-02-20T03:51:28 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/933 <pre>Hi, We have uploaded an updated draft. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shpiner-multi-path-synchronization The main changes compared to the previous draft: * Updates and fixes following the comments we received. * We added some description of how MPPTP uses unicast negotiation. * We slightly modified the protocols to flexibly allow a slave to choose the {master IP, slave IP} pairs it decides to use. Comments are welcome. Thanks, Tal. _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list TICTOC&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc </pre> Tal Mizrahi 2013-02-17T13:18:45 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/928 <pre>Hi all, We all know that in relativity theory E = m c^2 and that in quantum mechanics E = h f (where f is the wave frequency), so that a mass m corresponds to a frequency f = m c^2 / h (called its Compton frequency). However, until now it has not been practical to directly relate frequency and mass, because c^2/h is just too big. Well, in a new article http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6119/554.abstract researchers from Berkeley have been able to build a clock with an accuracy of E-9 that directly connects mass and frequency. Eventually this may lead to linking the definitions of the second and the kilogram. Y(J)S _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list TICTOC&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc </pre> Yaakov Stein 2013-02-12T17:23:15 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/927 <pre>Hello, I have submitted draft 04 of the security requirement draft. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tictoc-security-requirements-04 Summary of the changes: 1. Since draft 03 we have had very thorough reviews from Kevin Gross, Dan Grossman, Laurent Montini and Doug Arnold. I did my best to address all comments as best as I can. Please let me know if I did not satisfactorily address some of the comments. 2. I have added a Section called "Requirement Levels", explaining the factors that affected the choice of requirement levels (MUST/SHOULD/...) for the various comments. For each requirement, I also added a "Requirement Level" subsection which explains the rationale for choosing the specific requirement level for this requirement. Please let me know if there are any comments. Regards, Tal. _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list TICTOC&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc </pre> Tal Mizrahi 2013-02-07T17:35:36 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/926 <pre> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Timing over IP Connection and Transfer of Clock Working Group of the IETF. Title : Security Requirements of Time Synchronization Protocols in Packet Switched Networks Author(s) : Tal Mizrahi Filename : draft-ietf-tictoc-security-requirements-04.txt Pages : 32 Date : 2013-02-07 Abstract: As time synchronization protocols are becoming increasingly common and widely deployed, concern about their exposure to various security threats is increasing. This document defines a set of security requirements for time synchronization protocols, focusing on the Precision Time Protocol (PTP) and the Network Time Protocol (NTP). This document also discusses the security impacts of time synchronization protocol practices, the time synchronization performance implications of external security practices, the dependencies between other sec</pre> internet-drafts< at >ietf.org 2013-02-07T17:31:41 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/922 <pre>Folks, The kickoff of the IEEE 1588 activities that we discussed in November has been initiated. The first step is to develop a PAR. Details of the CFP are available at: http://standards.ieee.org/email/2013_01_cfp1588_web.html Regards, Karen </pre> Karen O'Donoghue 2013-01-24T09:14:14 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/914 <pre>Hi, I believe this document is very important and valuable. I believe there are a few issues that need to be clarified and further explained, as detailed below. Major Issues: ------------------ 1. Some more details about the deployment scenarios are necessary (especially in Section 4 and Section 18). For example, it is important to explain whether the LER can serve multiple customers. If the MPLS cloud (maintained by a service provider) provides timing services to multiple customers, this document must discuss the fact that LER BCs need to interact with multiple grandmasters, and consequently multiple time references. Similarly, if LSR TCs are syntonized to the master, it implies that they need to choose one master to syntonize to. 2. Figure 1 and Figure 2 describe point-to-point scenarios, but it is important to clarify also point-to-multipoint scenarios, when there are more than two LER BCs. For example, is it assumed that there is a full-mesh of timing LSPs between all LER BCs? 3. </pre> Tal Mizrahi 2012-11-22T07:32:22 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/913 <pre>Thanks for putting this draft together. I found it to be well written, well organized and very informative. I have some comments. General: Use MITM acronym defined in 2.2 instead of spelling it out many times By sections: 1 - Add playback to the list of attacks when synchronization is compromised. 1 - s/The IEEE 1588 includes/IEEE 1588 includes/ 1 - Provide definition or example for "packet timing deployments" 2.1 - s/"protocol packets" is refers/"protocol packets" refers/ 3.1 - s/documents/document/ 3.1.1 - Authentication and encryption can be used together. s/by an encryption or an authentication mechanism./by an encryption or an authentication mechanism or both. 3.1.2 - s/eavesdrop to protocol/eavesdrop on protocol/ 3.2 - Other threats to consider: Rogue transparent clock. A remedy is discussed in 4.1.4 but it is not documented as a threat. Rogue boundary clock Unauthorized receipt 3.2.9 - s/spoof the GPS satellites/spoof GPS satellite signals/ 3.3 s/Attacket/Attacker/ Table 1 - Add a couple</pre> Kevin Gross 2012-11-16T23:01:51 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tictoc/908 <pre>During last week's tictoc meeting at ietf85, it was decided that the mib would be changed from a read only mib to a read/write mib for configuration purposes. The authors proposed this change, and they believe this will not significantly delay publication of the mib. The current draft is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/tictoc/draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-mib/ The feeling in the room was that this was an acceptable change. This email is to confirm that decision and to solicit comments or concerns from the mailing list. Regards, Karen </pre> Karen O'Donoghue 2012-11-13T11:00:22 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.ietf.tictoc