Comparison to RFC 3161
59 views
Skip to first unread message
Maik Riechert
Jul 21, 2021, 10:41:19 AM7/21/21
to proto-roughtime
In the Roughtime (ietf.org) IETF draft there is a comparison with other NTP-like protocols, but I'm missing a comparison with RFC 3161. To me, Roughtime is "just" a more efficient alternative to RFC 3161 by supporting batch signing through Merkle trees. RFC 3161 also supports Roughtime's intended usage model of asking multiple servers sequentially since this just relies on nonces.
What am I missing?
Erik Kline
Jul 21, 2021, 2:32:22 PM7/21/21
to Maik Riechert, proto-roughtime, Erik Kline
That seems like a reasonable point to bring up. Care to raise it on the ntp working group mailing list (n...@ietf.org)?
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 7:41 AM 'Maik Riechert' via proto-roughtime <proto-r...@chromium.org> wrote:
In the Roughtime (ietf.org) IETF draft there is a comparison with other NTP-like protocols, but I'm missing a comparison with RFC 3161. To me, Roughtime is "just" a more efficient alternative to RFC 3161 by supporting batch signing through Merkle trees. RFC 3161 also supports Roughtime's intended usage model of asking multiple servers sequentially since this just relies on nonces.What am I missing?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "proto-roughtime" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to proto-roughti...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/proto-roughtime/05823923-2f31-4093-bd1d-9fc5234a7f4an%40chromium.org.
Maik Riechert
Jul 22, 2021, 9:44:20 AM7/22/21
to proto-roughtime, Erik Kline, proto-roughtime, ek....@gmail.com, Maik Riechert
Done!
Maik Riechert
Sep 27, 2021, 6:27:54 AM9/27/21
to proto-roughtime, Maik Riechert, Erik Kline, proto-roughtime, ek....@gmail.com
My message to the NTP mailing list didn't get through. I sent another one yesterday with the same result.
@Erik Feel free to post this on my behalf...
Hi,
In the Roughtime draft at https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ntp-roughtime-05.html there is a comparison with other NTP-like protocols, but I'm missing a comparison with RFC 3161. I know that both protocols serve different purposes (time server vs. time stamping) but they still seem to have a lot in common.
In my opinion, Roughtime could be seen as a more efficient alternative to RFC 3161 by supporting batch signing through Merkle trees. RFC 3161 also supports Roughtime's intended usage model of asking multiple servers sequentially since this just relies on nonces.
Of course, Roughtime doesn't directly support time stamping (binding) data, since that's not needed for time servers, but you could abuse the nonce for that to achieve the same effect.
In summary, I think a comparison with RFC 3161 would clear up uncertainty and confusion, as I've seen both mentioned together in various places on the web.
Regards
Maik
In the Roughtime draft at https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ntp-roughtime-05.html there is a comparison with other NTP-like protocols, but I'm missing a comparison with RFC 3161. I know that both protocols serve different purposes (time server vs. time stamping) but they still seem to have a lot in common.
In my opinion, Roughtime could be seen as a more efficient alternative to RFC 3161 by supporting batch signing through Merkle trees. RFC 3161 also supports Roughtime's intended usage model of asking multiple servers sequentially since this just relies on nonces.
Of course, Roughtime doesn't directly support time stamping (binding) data, since that's not needed for time servers, but you could abuse the nonce for that to achieve the same effect.
In summary, I think a comparison with RFC 3161 would clear up uncertainty and confusion, as I've seen both mentioned together in various places on the web.
Regards
Maik
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages