<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.6.35 (Ruby 3.2.2) -->
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-08" category="std" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" updates="5905, 5906, 8573, 7822, 7821" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.17.3 -->
  <front>
    <title>Updating the NTP Registries</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-08"/>
    <author initials="R." surname="Salz" fullname="Rich Salz">
      <organization>Akamai Technologies</organization>
      <address>
        <email>rsalz@akamai.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2023" month="June" day="22"/>
    <workgroup>ntp</workgroup>
    <keyword>NTP</keyword>
    <keyword>extensions</keyword>
    <keyword>registries</keyword>
    <keyword>IANA</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <?line 34?>

<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,
and makes updates where necessary.</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>
    <?line 47?>

<section anchor="introduction">
      <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,
and makes updates where necessary.</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">
      <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">
        <name>Reference ID, Kiss-o'-Death</name>
        <t><xref target="RFC5905"/> 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>
      </section>
      <section anchor="extension-field-types">
        <name>Extension Field Types</name>
        <t><xref section="7.5" sectionFormat="comma" target="RFC5905"/> defined the on-the-wire format of extension
fields but did not create a registry for them.</t>
        <t><xref section="13" sectionFormat="comma" target="RFC5906"/> mentioned the Extension Field Types registry, and defined it
indirectly by defining 30 extensions (10 each for request, response, and
error response).
It did not provide a formal definition of the columns in the registry.
<xref section="10" sectionFormat="comma" target="RFC5906"/> splits the Field Type into four subfields,
only for use within the Autokey extensions.</t>
        <t><xref target="RFC7821"/> added a new entry, Checksum Complement, to the Extension
Field Types registry.</t>
        <t><xref target="RFC7822"/> clarified the processing rules for Extension Field Types,
particularly around the interaction with the Message Authentication Code
(MAC) field.</t>
        <t><xref target="RFC8573"/> 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, in case there
is an implementation that used the registered values
instead of what the original implementation used.</li>
          <li>Some values were mistakenly re-used.</li>
        </ul>
      </section>
      <section anchor="network-time-security-registries">
        <name>Network Time Security Registries</name>
        <t><xref target="RFC8915"/> 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">
      <name>Updated Registries</name>
      <t>The following general guidelines apply to all registries updated here:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>Every registry reserves a partition for Private or Experimental Use.</li>
        <li>Entries 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"/>.</li>
      </ul>
      <t>Note that the second bullet removes the restrictions on fields
starting with the 0x58, the ASCII uppercase letter X.</t>
      <t>The IESG is requested to choose three designated experts, with two being
required to approve a registry change. Guidance for such experts is
given below.</t>
      <t>Each entry described in the sub-sections below is intended to completely
replace the existing entry with the same name.</t>
      <section anchor="guidance-to-designated-experts">
        <name>Guidance to Designated Experts</name>
        <t>The designated experts (DE) should be familiar with <xref target="RFC8126"/>, particularly
Section 5. As that reference suggests, the DE should ascertain the existence
of a suitable specification, and verify that it is publicly available. The DE
is also expected to check the clarity of purpose and use of the requested
code points.</t>
        <t>In addition, the DE is expected to be familiar with this document,
specifically the history documented here. If reviewing a request to allocate
a field value previously reserved for private or experimental use, but
reallocated per this document, it is RECOMMENDED to seek the feedback of the
NTP community via any of the regular working group participation mechanisms,
such as by posting to the working group's mailing list.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <section anchor="ntp-reference-identifier-codes">
        <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">
        <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">
        <name>NTP Extension Field Types</name>
        <t>The registration procedure is changed to Specification Required.</t>
        <t>The reference <xref target="RFC5906"/> should be added, if possible.</t>
        <t>The following two Notes are 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>
          <li>The "Reserved for historic reasons" is for differences between the
original documentation and implementation of Autokey and marks
the erroneous values as reserved, in case there is an implementation
that used the registered values instead of what the original
implementation used.</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>
          <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">UDP Checksum Complete</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 7821</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">
      <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, formerly at Akamai Technologies</li>
        <li>Danny Mayer, Network Time Foundation</li>
        <li>Michelle Cotton, formerly at 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>
          <author fullname="D. Mills" initials="D." surname="Mills"/>
          <author fullname="J. Martin" initials="J." role="editor" surname="Martin"/>
          <author fullname="J. Burbank" initials="J." surname="Burbank"/>
          <author fullname="W. Kasch" initials="W." surname="Kasch"/>
          <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>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5905"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5905"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC5906">
        <front>
          <title>Network Time Protocol Version 4: Autokey Specification</title>
          <author fullname="B. Haberman" initials="B." role="editor" surname="Haberman"/>
          <author fullname="D. Mills" initials="D." surname="Mills"/>
          <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>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5906"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5906"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC7821">
        <front>
          <title>UDP Checksum Complement in the Network Time Protocol (NTP)</title>
          <author fullname="T. Mizrahi" initials="T." surname="Mizrahi"/>
          <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>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7821"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7821"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC7822">
        <front>
          <title>Network Time Protocol Version 4 (NTPv4) Extension Fields</title>
          <author fullname="T. Mizrahi" initials="T." surname="Mizrahi"/>
          <author fullname="D. Mayer" initials="D." surname="Mayer"/>
          <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>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7822"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7822"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8126">
        <front>
          <title>Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs</title>
          <author fullname="M. Cotton" initials="M." surname="Cotton"/>
          <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
          <author fullname="T. Narten" initials="T." surname="Narten"/>
          <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>
        <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="26"/>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8126"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8126"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8573">
        <front>
          <title>Message Authentication Code for the Network Time Protocol</title>
          <author fullname="A. Malhotra" initials="A." surname="Malhotra"/>
          <author fullname="S. Goldberg" initials="S." surname="Goldberg"/>
          <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>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8573"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8573"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8915">
        <front>
          <title>Network Time Security for the Network Time Protocol</title>
          <author fullname="D. Franke" initials="D." surname="Franke"/>
          <author fullname="D. Sibold" initials="D." surname="Sibold"/>
          <author fullname="K. Teichel" initials="K." surname="Teichel"/>
          <author fullname="M. Dansarie" initials="M." surname="Dansarie"/>
          <author fullname="R. Sundblad" initials="R." surname="Sundblad"/>
          <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>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8915"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8915"/>
      </reference>
    </references>
  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>
