[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

Internet Engineering Task Force                               T. Mizrahi
Internet-Draft                                                   Marvell
Intended status: Standards Track                                D. Mayer
Expires: May 17, 2017                                           H. Stenn
                                                 Network Time Foundation
                                                       November 13, 2016


        Network Time Protocol Version 4 (NTPv4) Extension Fields
                  draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields-00

Abstract

   Network Time Protocol version 4 (NTPv4) defines the optional usage of
   extension fields.  An extension field, as defined in RFC 5905
   [RFC5905], resides after the end of the NTP header, and supplies
   optional capabilities or information that is not conveyed in the
   standard NTP header.  This document updates RFC 5905 [RFC5905] by
   clarifying some points regarding NTP extension fields and their usage
   with legacy Message Authentication Codes (MACs).

   With the adoption of this update, the authors recommend rescinding
   [Err3627].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 17, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents



Mizrahi, et al.           Expires May 17, 2017                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           NTPv4 Extension Fields            November 2016


   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Terms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  NTP Extension Fields - RFC 5905 Update  . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  OLD: 7.5 NTP Extension Field Format . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  NEW: 7.5 NTP Extension Field Format . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  NEW: 7.5.1 Extension Fields and MACs  . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   The NTP header format consists of a set of fixed fields that may be
   followed by optional fields.  Two types of optional fields are
   defined: extension fields as defined in Section 7.5 of RFC 5905
   [RFC5905], and legacy Message Authentication Codes (legacy MACs).

   If a legacy MAC is used, it resides at the end of the packet.  This
   field can be either a 4-octet crypto-NAK or data that is usually 20
   or 24 octets long.

   NTP extension fields are defined in RFC 5905 [RFC5905] as a generic
   mechanism that allows the addition of future extensions and features
   without modifying the NTP header format (Section 16 of RFC 5905
   [RFC5905]).

   Section 7.5 of RFC 5905 [RFC5905] clearly states that "one or more
   extension fields can be inserted after the header and before the MAC,
   which is always present when an extension field is present."
   However, the experimental Checksum Complement RFC 7821 [RFC7821]
   cannot be used if the NTP packet contains a MAC.

   To allow for extension fields that do not require a MAC, changes to
   the NTPv4 specification must be made.  [Err3627] was an attempt to




Mizrahi, et al.           Expires May 17, 2017                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           NTPv4 Extension Fields            November 2016


   clarify the rules around MACs, but with the adoption of this proposal
   the authors recommend rescinding [Err3627].

   This document better specifies and clarifies both Extention Fields
   and the requirements and parsing of a legacy MAC, with changes to
   address errors found after the publication of RFC 5905 [RFC5905] with
   respect to extension fields.  Specifically, this document updates
   Section 7.5 of RFC 5905 [RFC5905], clarifying the relationship
   between extension fields and MACs, and defines the behavior of a host
   that receives an unknown extension field.

2.  Conventions Used in This Document

2.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.2.  Terms and Abbreviations

   MAC - Message Authentication Code

   NTPv4 - Network Time Protocol, Version 4 RFC 5905 [RFC5905]

3.  NTP Extension Fields - RFC 5905 Update

   This document updates Section 7.5 of RFC 5905 [RFC5905] as follows:

3.1.  OLD: 7.5 NTP Extension Field Format

   In NTPv4, one or more extension fields can be inserted after the
   header and before the MAC, which is always present when an extension
   field is present.  Other than defining the field format, this
   document makes no use of the field contents.  An extension field
   contains a request or response message in the format shown in
   Figure 14.














Mizrahi, et al.           Expires May 17, 2017                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           NTPv4 Extension Fields            November 2016


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
   |          Field Type           |        Field Length           |
   +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
   .                                                               .
   .                             Value                             .
   .                                                               .
   +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
   |                       Padding (as needed)                     |
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+

                     Figure 14: Extension Field Format

   All extension fields are zero-padded to a word (four octets)
   boundary.  The Field Type field is specific to the defined function
   and is not elaborated here.  While the minimum field length
   containing required fields is four words (16 octets), a maximum field
   length remains to be established.

   The Length field is a 16-bit unsigned integer that indicates the
   length of the entire extension field in octets, including the Padding
   field.

3.2.  NEW: 7.5 NTP Extension Field Format

   In NTPv4, one or more extension fields can be inserted after the
   header and before the possibly optional legacy MAC.  A MAC SHOULD be
   present when an extension field is present.  A MAC is always present
   in some form when NTP packets are authenticated.  This MAC can be
   either a legacy MAC or a MAC-EF.  Other than defining the field
   format, this document makes no use of the field contents.  An
   extension field contains a request or response message in the format
   shown in Figure 14.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
   |          Field Type           |        Field Length           |
   +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
   .                                                               .
   .                             Value                             .
   .                                                               .
   +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
   |                       Padding (as needed)                     |
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+

                     Figure 14: Extension Field Format



Mizrahi, et al.           Expires May 17, 2017                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           NTPv4 Extension Fields            November 2016


   All extension fields are zero-padded to a word (four octets)
   boundary.  The Field Type field is specific to the defined function
   and is not elaborated here.  While the minimum field length
   containing required fields is four words (16 octets), a maximum field
   length remains to be established.

   The Length field is a 16-bit unsigned integer that indicates the
   length of the entire extension field in octets, including the Padding
   field.

   The Field Type contains the following sub-elements:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
   |R|E|O|I|   Code   Field Type   |       (Field Length)          |
   +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+

                             Field Type Format

   Where:

      R: 0 for a "Query", 1 for a "Response"

      E: 0 for "OK", 1 for an "Error"

      O: 0 for "MAC Required", 1 for "MAC Optional"

      I: 0 for "MAC Not Included", 1 for "MAC Included"

   The Code subtype is currently only used by RFC 5906, Autokey
   [RFC5906].

   The Field Type, Value, and Padding fields are specific to the defined
   function and are not elaborated here; the Field Type value is defined
   in an IANA registry, and the Length, Value, and Padding values are
   defined by the document referred to by the registry.  If a host
   receives an extension field with an unknown Field Type, the host
   SHOULD ignore the extension field and MAY drop the packet altogether
   if policy requires it.

   While the minimum field length containing required fields is four
   words (16 octets), the maximum field length MUST NOT be longer than
   65532 octets due to the maximum size of the data represented by the
   Length field, and SHOULD be small enough that the size of the NTP
   packet received by the client does not exceed the smallest MTU
   between the sender and the recipient.




Mizrahi, et al.           Expires May 17, 2017                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           NTPv4 Extension Fields            November 2016


   The Length field is a 16-bit unsigned integer that indicates the
   length of the entire extension field in octets, including any Padding
   .

3.3.  NEW: 7.5.1 Extension Fields and MACs

   With the inclusion of additional Extension Fields, there is now a
   possibility of an ambiguous parsing of a legacy MAC.  If an
   implementation offers even a modicum of care, there will be no
   ambiguity when parsing an NTP packet that contains a legacy MAC.

   If an implementation uses the LAST-EF extension field, the presence
   of this field means "I am the last EF in this NTP Packet.  Any
   subsequent packet data MUST be a legacy MAC."  In this case, there is
   no parsing ambiguity.

   If a system sends its MAC as a MAC-EF and does not send a legacy MAC,
   there is no parsing ambiguity.

   The only time there is a potential for a parsing ambiguity is when a
   legacy MAC is provided and neither of the previous two cases are
   present.  Even in this case, there is minimal risk.

   An Extension Field contains a 2-octet Field Type, a 2-octet Field
   Length, and any payload (data and/or padding).  If the NTP Packet
   parsing is at a point where it is evaluating data after the base
   packet, one of the following situations exists:

      If the Field Length is not an even multiple of 4, we are not
      looking at an extension field.  In this case, the only possibility
      of having a valid packet is if the data is part of a legacy MAC.

      If the Field Length is valid, i.e., an even multiple of 4 octets,
      one of the following three cases must be present:

         First, the Field Length will be less than the remaining data.
         This means subsequent data must parse as some number of
         Extension Fields, optionally follwed by a legacy MAC.

         Second, the Field Length will exactly match the remaining data.

         The third case is where the Field Length is longer than the
         remaining packet data.  In this case, the current parse cannot
         be a valid extension field.

   Semantic checking may also be done to validate a potential legacy
   MAC.  A legacy MAC is a four-octet Key Identifier followed by a
   message digest.  The usual message digest is 16 octets long but may



Mizrahi, et al.           Expires May 17, 2017                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           NTPv4 Extension Fields            November 2016


   be another size, depending on the digest algorithm.  In the Reference
   Implementation, a Key Identifier between 1 and 65535, inclusive, is a
   symmetric key, while a Key Identifier that is > 65535 is an Autokey
   RFC 5905 [RFC5905], or similar.  If the receiving system does not
   recognize the Key Identifier, the data CANNOT be a valid legacy MAC.
   If the receiving system recognizes the Key Identifier, then it also
   has knowledge of the digest algorithm and can make sure the digest
   payload is the proper length.  If this is not the case, then the data
   CANNOT be a valid legacy MAC.

   It is trivial to parse the data after the base NTP packet and come up
   with a list of potential parsings.  A local policy choice can specify
   the precedence of the parsing options in this case.

   If none of the parsings validate, the packet fails authentication.
   An implementation has three local policy choices available if LAST-EF
   is not used and a legacy MAC may be provided.  First, the
   implementation may specify EF-precedence.  Second, the implementation
   may specify legacy-MAC-precedence.  Finally, the implementation may
   specify "best fit" precedence.  In this last case, the packet will
   meet one of the three following criteria: First, none of the parsings
   will match.  Again, this is a case of failed authentication.  Second,
   exactly one parsing will match and that parsing will be accepted.
   Third, multiple parsings will match, in which case the implementation
   may choose its behavior.

   Additionally, most EFs will require a MAC.  If there is a
   syntactically-valid parsing that does not include a MAC but
   previously scanned EFs require a MAC, then in a multiple-choice
   parsing scenario where one of the choices does not include a MAC the
   "no MAC provided" choice SHOULD be eliminated.

   Note well that this rare situation can be completely avoided by using
   LAST-EF, or by indicating that no legacy MAC will be used.

4.  IANA Considerations

   This memo requests IANA to allocate NTP Extension Field Types 0x0007
   (I-Do), 0x2007 (I-Do, MAC OPTIONAL), 0x8007 (I-Do Response), and
   0xA007 (I-Do Response, MAC OPTIONAL)for this proposal.

5.  Security Considerations

   Additional information TBD







Mizrahi, et al.           Expires May 17, 2017                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           NTPv4 Extension Fields            November 2016


6.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC5905]  Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
              "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
              Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.

   [RFC5906]  Haberman, B., Ed. and D. Mills, "Network Time Protocol
              Version 4: Autokey Specification", RFC 5906,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5906, June 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5906>.

   [RFC7821]  Mizrahi, T., "UDP Checksum Complement in the Network Time
              Protocol (NTP)", RFC 7821, DOI 10.17487/RFC7821, March
              2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7821>.

Authors' Addresses

   Tal Mizrahi
   Marvell
   6 Hamda St.
   Yokneam, 20692
   Israel

   Email: talmi@marvell.com


   Danny Mayer
   Network Time Foundation
   P.O. Box 918
   Talent, OR  97540
   US

   Email: mayer@ntp.org


   Harlan Stenn
   Network Time Foundation
   P.O. Box 918
   Talent, OR  97540
   US

   Email: stenn@nwtime.org



Mizrahi, et al.           Expires May 17, 2017                  [Page 8]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/