<?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 1.7.4 (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-13" category="std" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" updates="5905, 5906, 8573, 7822, 7821" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.18.2 -->
  <front>
    <title>Updating the NTP Registries</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-13"/>
    <author initials="R." surname="Salz" fullname="Rich Salz">
      <organization>Akamai Technologies</organization>
      <address>
        <email>rsalz@akamai.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2023" month="December" day="14"/>
    <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.</t>
      <t>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 48?>

<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.
The NTP registries can all be found at
<eref target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/ntp-parameters/ntp-parameters.xhtml">https://www.iana.org/assignments/ntp-parameters/ntp-parameters.xhtml</eref>
and the NTS registries can all be found at
<eref target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/nts/nts.xhtml">https://www.iana.org/assignments/nts/nts.xhtml</eref>.</t>
      <t>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>
          <t>First, each registry, its defining document, and a summary of its
syntax is defined.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Second, the revised format and entries for each registry that is
being modified is specified.</t>
        </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.  NTPv4 packets may contain a MAC, but it appears where one would
expect an extension with an extension ID of zero and a length of zero.
This document adds a registration for the ID, below.</t>
        <t><xref target="RFC8573"/> changed the cryptography used in the MAC field.</t>
        <t><xref target="RFC8915"/> added four new entries to the Extension Field Types registry.</t>
        <t>The following problems exists with the current registry:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>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.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Some values were mistakenly re-used.</t>
          </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>
          <t>Every registry reserves a partition for Private or Experimental Use.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Entries with ASCII fields are now limited to uppercase letters or digits; fields
starting with 0x58, the uppercase letter "X", are reserved for Private or
Experimental Use.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>The policy for every registry is now Specification Required, as defined
in <xref section="4.6" sectionFormat="comma" target="RFC8126"/>.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <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.</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>
            <t>Codes beginning with the character "X" are reserved for experimentation
and development. IANA cannot assign them.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>The columns are defined as follows:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>ID (required): a four-byte value padded on the right with all-bits-zero.
Each byte other than padding must be an ASCII uppercase letter or digits.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Clock source (required): A brief text description of the ID.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Reference (required): the publication defining the ID.</t>
          </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>
            <t>Codes beginning with the character "X" are reserved for experimentation
and development. IANA cannot assign them.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>The columns are defined as follows:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>ID (required): a four-byte value padded on the right with all-bits-zero.
Each byte other than padding must be an ASCII uppercase letter or digits.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Meaning source (required): A brief text description of the ID.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Reference (required): the publication defining the ID.</t>
          </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>
            <t>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.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>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.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>The columns are defined as follows:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>Field Type (required): A two-byte value in hexadecimal.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Meaning (required): A brief text description of the field type.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Reference (required): the publication defining the field type.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>The table is replaced with the following entries.
IANA is requested to replace "This RFC" with the actual RFC number once
assigned.</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">0x0000</td>
              <td align="left">Cryptographic MAC</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5905, This RFC</td>
            </tr>
            <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">Autokey 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">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">0x0902</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 Complement</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">0x8902</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">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>
          <t>Miroslav Lichvar, Red Hat</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Daniel Franke, formerly at Akamai Technologies</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Danny Mayer, Network Time Foundation</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Michelle Cotton, formerly at IANA</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Tamme Dittrich, Tweede Golf</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references anchor="sec-normative-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>
