Subject: [Ntp] Encrypted NTS cookie placeholder

From: Miroslav Lichvar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 11:14:42 +0100

I noticed an interoperability issue with NTS servers that people here
have been using for testing.

The draft says in 5.7:
The client MAY include one or more NTS Cookie Placeholder extension
fields which MUST be authenticated and MAY be encrypted.

But that doesn't seem to be supported by most of the servers. Some
ignore encrypted Placeholders (sending a shorter response) and some
don't even respond to such a request. The implementors may want to
check that.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar

---

From: Martin Langer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 13:57:21 +0100

Thanks for this information.

My implementation doesn't support encrypted NTS Cookie Placeholder right 
now.
Looks like I forgot this scenario. Thanks ;)

best regards,
Martin

-- 
Martin Langer, M.Eng.
Ostfalia Hochschule für angewandte Wissenschaften
- Hochschule Braunschweig/Wolfenbüttel
University of Applied Sciences

Labor Datentechnik, Labor Design Digitaler Systeme
Fakultät Elektrotechnik
Salzdahlumer Straße 46/48
38302 Wolfenbüttel
Germany

Tel. : +49 5331 939 43370
Web  : https://www.ostfalia.de/cms/de/pws/bermbach/mitarbeiter/martin-langer

---

From: Hal Murray <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 18:04:08 -0800

[email-masked] said:
> The draft says in 5.7: The client MAY include one or more NTS Cookie
> Placeholder extension fields which MUST be authenticated and MAY be
> encrypted.

> But that doesn't seem to be supported by most of the servers. Some ignore
> encrypted Placeholders (sending a shorter response) and some don't even
> respond to such a request. The implementors may want to check that.

Thanks for catching that.

Would it be cleaner in the long run to pick one?  The idea is to simplify 
things so they are more likely to work and simpler to test.

-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.