<?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 1.7.11 (Ruby 3.2.4) -->
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-14" category="std" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" updates="5905, 5906, 8573, 7822, 7821" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.21.0 -->
  <front>
    <title>Updating the NTP Registries</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-14"/>
    <author initials="R." surname="Salz" fullname="Rich Salz">
      <organization>Akamai Technologies</organization>
      <address>
        <email>rsalz@akamai.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2024" month="May" 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 <xref section="16" sectionFormat="comma" target="RFC5905"/>.</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 that appears where
one would expect the next extension field header.</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 exist 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.
## NTP Extension Field Types</t>
        <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">Crypto-NAK; authentication failure</td>
              <td align="left">RFC 5905</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>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">0xF000-<br/>0xFFFF</td>
              <td align="left">Reserved for Experimental Use</td>
              <td align="left">This RFC</td>
            </tr>
          </tbody>
        </table>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>This document adds no new security considerations, as they are defined
in the document that defines the extension.  See the References column of the
appropriate table.</t>
    </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>
