<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc2629 version 1.5.9 -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629-xhtml.ent">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-04" category="info" updates="5905, 5906, 8573, 7822, 7821" obsoletes="" submissionType="IETF" xml:lang="en" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 2.47.0 -->
  <front>
    <title>Updating the NTP Registries</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-latest"/>
    <author initials="R." surname="Salz" fullname="Rich Salz">
      <organization>Akamai Technologies</organization>
      <address>
        <email>rsalz@akamai.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2022" month="April" day="18"/>
    <workgroup>ntp</workgroup>
    <keyword>NTP</keyword>
    <keyword>extensions</keyword>
    <keyword>registries</keyword>
    <keyword>IANA</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <t>The Network Time Protocol (NTP) and Network Time Security (NTS) documents
define a number of assigned number registries, collectively called the NTP
registries.
Some registries have wrong values, some registries
do not follow current common practice, and some are just right.
For the sake of completeness, this document reviews all NTP and NTS registries.</t>
      <t>This document updates RFC 5905, RFC 5906, RFC 8573, RFC 7822, and
RFC 7821.</t>
    </abstract>
    <note removeInRFC="true">
      <name>Notes</name>
      <t>This document is a product of the
    <eref target="https://dt.ietf.org/wg/ntp">NTP Working Group</eref>.
    Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
    <eref target="https://github.com/richsalz/draft-rsalz-update-registries"/>.
      </t>
      <t>RFC Editor: Please update 'this RFC' to refer to this document,
    once its RFC number is known, through the document.</t>
    </note>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section anchor="introduction" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>The Network Time Protocol (NTP) and Network Time Security (NTS) documents
define a number of assigned number registries, collectively called the NTP
registries.
Some registries have wrong values, some registries
do not follow current common practice, and some are just right.
For the sake of completeness, this document reviews all NTP and NTS registries.</t>
      <t>The bulk of this document can be divided into two parts:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>First, each registry, its defining document, and a summary of its
syntax is defined.</li>
        <li>Second, the revised format and entries for each registry that is
being modified is specified.</li>
      </ul>
    </section>
    <section anchor="existing-registries" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Existing Registries</name>
      <t>This section describes the registries and the rules for them.
It is intended to be a short summary of the syntax and registration
requirements for each registry.
The semantics and protocol processing rules for each registry -- that is,
how an implementation acts when sending or receiving any of the fields --
are not described here.</t>
      <section anchor="reference-id-kiss-o-death" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Reference ID, Kiss-o'-Death</name>
        <t><xref target="RFC5905" format="default"/> defined two registries; the Reference ID in Section 7.3, and the
Kiss-o'-Death in Section 7.4.  Both of these are allowed to be four ASCII
characters; padded on the right with all-bits-zero if necessary.
Entries that start with 0x58, the ASCII
letter uppercase X, are reserved for Private or Experimental Use.
Both registries are first-come first-served. The formal request to define
the registries is in Section 16.</t>
        <t><xref section="7.5" sectionFormat="comma" target="RFC5905" format="default"/> defined the on-the-wire format of extension
fields but did not create a registry for it.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="extension-field-types" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Extension Field Types</name>
        <t><xref target="RFC5906" format="default"/> mentioned the Extension Field Types registry, and defined it
indirectly by defining 30 extensions (15 each for request and response)
in Section 13.
It did not provide a formal definition of the columns in the registry.
<xref section="10" sectionFormat="comma" target="RFC5906" format="default"/> splits the Field Type into four subfields,
only for use within the Autokey extensions.</t>
        <t><xref target="RFC7821" format="default"/> added a new entry, Checksum Complement, to the Extension
Field Types registry.</t>
        <t><xref target="RFC7822" format="default"/> clarified the processing rules for Extension Field Types,
particularly around the interaction with the Message Authentication Code
(MAC) field.</t>
        <t><xref target="RFC8573" format="default"/> changed the cryptography used in the MAC field.</t>
        <t>The following problems exists with the current registry:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>Many of the entries in the Extension Field Types registry have
swapped some of the nibbles; 0x1234 is listed as 0x1432 for example.
This was due to documentation errors with the original implementation
of Autokey.
This document marks the erroneous values as reserved.</li>
          <li>Some values were mistakenly re-used.</li>
        </ul>
      </section>
      <section anchor="network-time-security-registries" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Network Time Security Registries</name>
        <t><xref target="RFC8915" format="default"/> defines the NTS protocol.
Its registries are listed here for completeness, but no changes
to them are specified in this document.</t>
        <t>Sections 7.1 through 7.5 (inclusive) added entries to existing registries.</t>
        <t>Section 7.6 created a new registry, NTS Key Establishment Record Types,
that partitions the assigned numbers into three different registration
policies: IETF Review, Specification Required, and Private or Experimental Use.</t>
        <t>Section 7.7 created a new registry, NTS Next Protocols,
that similarly partitions the assigned numbers.</t>
        <t>Section 7.8 created two new registries, NTS Error Codes and NTS Warning Codes.
Both registries are also partitioned the same way.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="updated-registries" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Updated Registries</name>
      <t>The following general guidelines apply to all registries updated here:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>Every entry reserves a partition for Private or Experimentatal Use.</li>
        <li>Registries with ASCII fields are now limited to uppercase letters; fields
starting with 0x2D, the ASCII minus sign, are reserved for Private or
Experimental Use..</li>
        <li>The policy for every registry is now Specification Required, as defined
in <xref section="4.6" sectionFormat="comma" target="RFC8126" format="default"/>.</li>
      </ul>
      <t>The IESG is requested to choose three designated experts, with two being
required to approve a registry change.</t>
      <t>Each entry described in the sub-sections below is intended to completely
replace the existing entry with the same name.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <section anchor="ntp-reference-identifier-codes" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>NTP Reference Identifier Codes</name>
        <t>The registration procedure is changed to Specification Required.</t>
        <t>The Note is changed to read as follows:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>Codes beginning with the character "-" are reserved for experimentation
and development. IANA cannot assign them.</li>
        </ul>
        <t>The columns are defined as follows:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>ID (required): a four-byte value padded on the right with zeros.
Each value must be an ASCII uppercase letter or minus sign</li>
          <li>Clock source (required): A brief text description of the ID</li>
          <li>Reference (required): the publication defining the ID.</li>
        </ul>
        <t>The existing entries are left unchanged.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="ntp-kiss-o-death-codes" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>NTP Kiss-o'-Death Codes</name>
        <t>The registration procedure is changed to Specification Required.</t>
        <t>The Note is changed to read as follows:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>Codes beginning with the character "-" are reserved for experimentation
and development. IANA cannot assign them.</li>
        </ul>
        <t>The columns are defined as follows:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>ID (required): a four-byte value padded on the right with zeros.
Each value must be an ASCII uppercase letter or minus sign.</li>
          <li>Meaning source (required): A brief text description of the ID.</li>
          <li>Reference (required): the publication defining the ID.</li>
        </ul>
        <t>The existing entries are left unchanged.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="ntp-extension-field-types" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>NTP Extension Field Types</name>
        <t>The registration procedure is changed to Specification Required.</t>
        <t>The reference should be <xref target="RFC5906" format="default"/> added, if possible.</t>
        <t>The following Note is added:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>Field Types in the range 0xF000 through 0xFFFF, inclusive, are reserved
for experimentation and development. IANA cannot assign them.
Both NTS Cookie and Autokey Message Request have the same Field Type;
in practice this is not a problem as the field semantics will be
determined by other parts of the message.</li>
        </ul>
        <t>The columns are defined as follows:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>Field Type (required): A two-byte value in hexadecimal.</li>
          <li>Meaning (required): A brief text description of the field type.</li>
          <li>Reference (required): the publication defining the field type.</li>
        </ul>
        <t>The table is replaced with the following entries.</t>
        <table align="center">
          <thead>
            <tr>
              <th align="left">Field Type</th>
              <th align="left">Meaning</th>
              <th align="left">Reference</th>
            </tr>
          </thead>
          <tbody>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0002</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0102</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0104</td>
              <td align="left">Unique Identifier</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 8915, Section 5.3</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0200</td>
              <td align="left">No-Operation Request</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0201</td>
              <td align="left">Association Message Request</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0202</td>
              <td align="left">Certificate Message Request</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0203</td>
              <td align="left">Cookie Message Request</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0204</td>
              <td align="left">NTS Cookie</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 8915, Section 5.4</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0204</td>
              <td align="left">Autokey Message Request</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0205</td>
              <td align="left">Leapseconds Message Request</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0206</td>
              <td align="left">Sign Message Request</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0207</td>
              <td align="left">IFF Identity Message Request</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0208</td>
              <td align="left">GQ Identity Message Request</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0209</td>
              <td align="left">MV Identity Message Request</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0302</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0304</td>
              <td align="left">NTS Cookie Placeholder</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 8915, Section 5.5</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0402</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0404</td>
              <td align="left">NTS Authenticator and Encrypted Extension Fields</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 8915, Section 5.6</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0502</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0602</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0702</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x2005</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8002</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8102</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8200</td>
              <td align="left">No-Operation Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8201</td>
              <td align="left">Association Message Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8202</td>
              <td align="left">Certificate Message Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8203</td>
              <td align="left">Cookie Message Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8204</td>
              <td align="left">Autokey Message Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8205</td>
              <td align="left">Leapseconds Message Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8206</td>
              <td align="left">Sign Message Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8207</td>
              <td align="left">IFF Identity Message Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8208</td>
              <td align="left">GQ Identity Message Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8209</td>
              <td align="left">MV Identity Message Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8302</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8402</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8502</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8602</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8702</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8802</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC002</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC102</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC200</td>
              <td align="left">No-Operation Error Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC201</td>
              <td align="left">Association Message Error Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC202</td>
              <td align="left">Certificate Message Error Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC203</td>
              <td align="left">Cookie Message Error Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC204</td>
              <td align="left">Autokey Message Error Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC205</td>
              <td align="left">Leapseconds Message Error Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC206</td>
              <td align="left">Sign Message Error Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC207</td>
              <td align="left">IFF Identity Message Error Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC208</td>
              <td align="left">GQ Identity Message Error Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC209</td>
              <td align="left">MV Identity Message Error Response</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5906</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC302</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC402</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC502</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC602</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC702</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC802</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x0902</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0x8902</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xC902</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for historic reasons</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
          </tbody>
        </table>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="acknowledgements" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Acknowledgements</name>
      <t>The members of the NTP Working Group helped a great deal.
Notable contributors include:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>Miroslav Lichvar, Red Hat</li>
        <li>Daniel Franke, Akamai Technologies</li>
        <li>Danny Mayer, Network Time Foundation</li>
        <li>Michelle Cotton, IANA</li>
      </ul>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references>
      <name>Normative References</name>
      <reference anchor="RFC5905">
        <front>
          <title>Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification</title>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5905"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5905"/>
          <author fullname="D. Mills" initials="D." surname="Mills">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="J. Martin" initials="J." role="editor" surname="Martin">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="J. Burbank" initials="J." surname="Burbank">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="W. Kasch" initials="W." surname="Kasch">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="June" year="2010"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>The Network Time Protocol (NTP) is widely used to synchronize computer clocks in the Internet.  This document describes NTP version 4 (NTPv4), which is backwards compatible with NTP version 3 (NTPv3), described in RFC 1305, as well as previous versions of the protocol. NTPv4 includes a modified protocol header to accommodate the Internet Protocol version 6 address family.  NTPv4 includes fundamental improvements in the mitigation and discipline algorithms that extend the potential accuracy to the tens of microseconds with modern workstations and fast LANs.  It includes a dynamic server discovery scheme, so that in many cases, specific server configuration is not required.  It corrects certain errors in the NTPv3 design and implementation and includes an optional extension mechanism.   [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC5906">
        <front>
          <title>Network Time Protocol Version 4: Autokey Specification</title>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5906"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5906"/>
          <author fullname="B. Haberman" initials="B." role="editor" surname="Haberman">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="D. Mills" initials="D." surname="Mills">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="June" year="2010"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This memo describes the Autokey security model for authenticating servers to clients using the Network Time Protocol (NTP) and public key cryptography.  Its design is based on the premise that IPsec schemes cannot be adopted intact, since that would preclude stateless servers and severely compromise timekeeping accuracy.  In addition, Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) schemes presume authenticated time values are always available to enforce certificate lifetimes; however, cryptographically verified timestamps require interaction between the timekeeping and authentication functions.</t>
            <t>This memo includes the Autokey requirements analysis, design principles, and protocol specification.  A detailed description of the protocol states, events, and transition functions is included.  A prototype of the Autokey design based on this memo has been implemented, tested, and documented in the NTP version 4 (NTPv4) software distribution for the Unix, Windows, and Virtual Memory System (VMS) operating systems at http://www.ntp.org.  This  document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC7821">
        <front>
          <title>UDP Checksum Complement in the Network Time Protocol (NTP)</title>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7821"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7821"/>
          <author fullname="T. Mizrahi" initials="T." surname="Mizrahi">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="March" year="2016"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>The Network Time Protocol (NTP) allows clients to synchronize to a time server using timestamped protocol messages.  To facilitate accurate timestamping, some implementations use hardware-based timestamping engines that integrate the accurate transmission time into every outgoing NTP packet during transmission.  Since these packets are transported over UDP, the UDP Checksum field is then updated to reflect this modification.  This document proposes an extension field that includes a 2-octet Checksum Complement, allowing timestamping engines to reflect the checksum modification in the last 2 octets of the packet rather than in the UDP Checksum field.  The behavior defined in this document is interoperable with existing NTP implementations.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC7822">
        <front>
          <title>Network Time Protocol Version 4 (NTPv4) Extension Fields</title>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7822"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7822"/>
          <author fullname="T. Mizrahi" initials="T." surname="Mizrahi">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="D. Mayer" initials="D." surname="Mayer">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="March" year="2016"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>The Network Time Protocol version 4 (NTPv4) defines the optional usage of extension fields.  An extension field, as defined in RFC 5905, is an optional field that resides at the end of the NTP header and that can be used to add optional capabilities or additional information that is not conveyed in the standard NTP header.  This document updates RFC 5905 by clarifying some points regarding NTP extension fields and their usage with Message Authentication Codes (MACs).</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8126">
        <front>
          <title>Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs</title>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8126"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8126"/>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="26"/>
          <author fullname="M. Cotton" initials="M." surname="Cotton">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="T. Narten" initials="T." surname="Narten">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="June" year="2017"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants to identify various protocol parameters.  To ensure that the values in these fields do not have conflicting uses and to promote interoperability, their allocations are often coordinated by a central record keeper.  For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).</t>
            <t>To make assignments in a given registry prudently, guidance describing the conditions under which new values should be assigned, as well as when and how modifications to existing values can be made, is needed.  This document defines a framework for the documentation of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that the provided guidance for the IANA Considerations is clear and addresses the various issues that are likely in the operation of a registry.</t>
            <t>This is the third edition of this document; it obsoletes RFC 5226.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8573">
        <front>
          <title>Message Authentication Code for the Network Time Protocol</title>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8573"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8573"/>
          <author fullname="A. Malhotra" initials="A." surname="Malhotra">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="S. Goldberg" initials="S." surname="Goldberg">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="June" year="2019"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>The Network Time Protocol (NTP), as described in RFC 5905, states that NTP packets should be authenticated by appending NTP data to a 128-bit key and hashing the result with MD5 to obtain a 128-bit tag. This document deprecates MD5-based authentication, which is considered too weak, and recommends the use of AES-CMAC as described in RFC 4493 as a replacement.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8915">
        <front>
          <title>Network Time Security for the Network Time Protocol</title>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8915"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8915"/>
          <author fullname="D. Franke" initials="D." surname="Franke">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="D. Sibold" initials="D." surname="Sibold">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="K. Teichel" initials="K." surname="Teichel">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="M. Dansarie" initials="M." surname="Dansarie">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="R. Sundblad" initials="R." surname="Sundblad">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="September" year="2020"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This memo specifies Network Time Security (NTS), a mechanism for using Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) to provide cryptographic security for the client-server mode of the Network Time Protocol (NTP). </t>
            <t>NTS is structured as a suite of two loosely coupled sub-protocols. The first (NTS Key Establishment (NTS-KE)) handles initial authentication and key establishment over TLS. The second (NTS Extension Fields for NTPv4) handles encryption and authentication during NTP time synchronization via extension fields in the NTP packets, and holds all required state only on the client via opaque cookies.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
      </reference>
    </references>
  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>
