Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


RFC 9748Updating the NTP RegistriesFebruary 2025
SalzStandards Track[Page]
Stream:
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
RFC:
9748
Updates:
5905,5906,7821,7822,8573
Category:
Standards Track
Published:
ISSN:
2070-1721
Author:
R. Salz
Akamai Technologies

RFC 9748

Updating the NTP Registries

Abstract

The Network Time Protocol (NTP) and Network Time Security (NTS) documentsdefine a number of registries, collectively called the NTPregistries.

Some registries are correct, but some include incorrect assignments and some don't follow common practice. For the sake of completeness, this document reviews all NTP and NTS registries, and corrects the registries where necessary.

This document updates RFCs 5905, 5906, 7821, 7822, and 8573.

Status of This Memo

This is an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9748.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2025 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

1.Introduction

The Network Time Protocol (NTP) and Network Time Security (NTS) documentsdefine a number of registries, collectively called the NTPregistries.The NTP registries can all be found at<https://www.iana.org/assignments/ntp-parameters>and the NTS registries can all be found at<https://www.iana.org/assignments/nts>.

Some registries are correct, but some include incorrect assignments and some don't follow common practice. For the sake of completeness, this document reviews all NTP and NTS registries, and corrects the registries where necessary.

The bulk of this document can be divided into two parts:

2.Existing Registries

This section describes the registries and the rules for them.It is intended to be a short summary of the syntax and registrationrequirements 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.

2.1.Reference ID and Kiss-o'-Death Registries

[RFC5905] defines two registries: "NTP Reference Identifier Codes" in Section7.3 and the"NTP Kiss-o'-Death Codes" in Section7.4. Reference identifiers and kiss codes can be up to four ASCII characters, padded on the right with all-bits-zero if necessary.Entries that start with 0x58, the ASCIIletter uppercase X, are reserved for Private or Experimental Use.Both registries are First Come First Served. The registries were createdperSection 16 of [RFC5905].

2.2.Extension Field Types

Section 7.5 of [RFC5905] defines the on-the-wire format of extensionfields but does not create a registry for them.

Section 13 of [RFC5906] mentions the "NTP Extension Field Types" registry, and defines itindirectly by defining 30 extensions (10 each for request, response, anderror response).It does not provide a formal definition of the columns in the registry.Section 10 of [RFC5906] splits the Field Type into four subfields,only for use within the Autokey extensions.

[RFC7821] adds a new entry, Checksum Complement, to the "NTP Extension Field Types" registry.

[RFC7822] clarifies the processing rules for Extension Field Types,particularly around the interaction with the Message AuthenticationCode (MAC) field. NTPv4 packets may contain a MAC that appears whereone would expect the next extension field header.

[RFC8573] changes the cryptography used in the MAC field.

[RFC8915] adds four new entries to the "NTP Extension Field Types" registry.

The following problems exist with the current registry:

  • Many of the entries in the "NTP Extension Field Types" registry haveswapped some of the nibbles; for example, 0x0302 was listed for Cookie Message Request instead of 0x0203. The errors are due to documentation errors with the original implementationof Autokey.This document marks the erroneous values as reserved, in case thereis an implementation using the registered valuesinstead of what the original implementation used.Applications that used those values would have realizedthat they did not interoperate with the dominant (if not only)implementation at the time.Marking the values as reserved ensures that any such applications continueto work as is.

  • Some values were mistakenly reused.

2.3.Network Time Security Registries

[RFC8915] defines the NTS protocol.The related registries are listed here for completeness, but there are nochanges specified in this document.

In[RFC8915]:

Sections7.1 through7.5 (inclusive) added entries to existing registries.

Section7.6 created the "Network Time Security Key Establishment Record Types" registry that partitions the range into three different registration policies:IETF Review, Specification Required, and Private or Experimental Use.

Section7.7 created the "Network Time Security Next Protocols" registry that similarly partitions the range.

Section7.8 created the "Network Time Security Error Codes" and "Network Time Security Warning Codes" registries. Both registries are partitioned the same way.

3.NTP Registry Updates

The following general guidelines apply to the NTP registries:

3.1.Designated Experts

The IESG is requested to choose three designated experts (DEs), with approvals from two being required to implement a change. Guidance for the experts is given below.

The DEs should be familiar with[RFC8126], particularlySection5. As that reference suggests, the DE should ascertain the existenceof a suitable specification and verify that it is publicly available. The DEis also expected to check the clarity of purpose and use of the requestedcode points.

In addition, the DE is expected to be familiar with this document,specifically the history documented here.

4.IANA Considerations

Each entry described in the subsections below is intended to completelyreplace the existing entry with the same name.

4.1.NTP Reference Identifier Codes

The registration procedure has been changed to Specification Required and this document has been added as a reference.

The Note has been changed to read as follows:

Codes beginning with the character "X" are reserved for experimentation and development. IANA cannot assign them.

The columns are defined as follows:

ID (required):
a four-byte value padded on the right with all-bits-zero. Each byte other than padding must be ASCII uppercase letters or digits.
Clock source (required):
a brief text description of the ID.
Reference (required):
the publication defining the ID.

The existing entries are left unchanged.

4.2.NTP Kiss-o'-Death Codes

The registration procedure is changed to Specification Required and this document has been added as a reference.

The Note has been changed to read as follows:

Codes beginning with the character "X" are reserved for experimentation and development. IANA cannot assign them.

The columns are defined as follows:

ID (required):
a four-byte value padded on the right with all-bits-zero. Each byte other than padding must be ASCII uppercase letters or digits.
Meaning source (required):
a brief text description of the ID.
Reference (required):
the publication defining the ID.

The existing entries are left unchanged.

4.3.NTP Extension Field Types

The registration procedure has been changed to Specification Required and[RFC5906] and this document have been added as references.

The following two Notes have been added:

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.
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.

The columns are defined as follows:

Field Type (required):
a two-byte value in hexadecimal.
Meaning (required):
a brief text description of the field type.
Reference (required):
the publication defining the field type.

IANA has updated the registry as shown inTable 1.

Table 1
Field TypeMeaningReference
0x0000Crypto-NAK; authentication failure[RFC5905]
0x0002Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0x0102Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0x0104Unique Identifier[RFC8915],Section 5.3
0x0200No-Operation Request[RFC5906]
0x0201Association Message Request[RFC5906]
0x0202Certificate Message Request[RFC5906]
0x0203Cookie Message Request[RFC5906]
0x0204Autokey Message Request[RFC5906]
0x0204NTS Cookie[RFC8915],Section 5.4
0x0205Leapseconds Message Request[RFC5906]
0x0206Sign Message Request[RFC5906]
0x0207IFF Identity Message Request[RFC5906]
0x0208GQ Identity Message Request[RFC5906]
0x0209MV Identity Message Request[RFC5906]
0x0302Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0x0304NTS Cookie Placeholder[RFC8915],Section 5.5
0x0402Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0x0404NTS Authenticator and Encrypted Extension Fields[RFC8915],Section 5.6
0x0502Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0x0602Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0x0702Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0x0802Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0x0902Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0x2005UDP Checksum Complement[RFC7821]
0x8002Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0x8102Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0x8200No-Operation Response[RFC5906]
0x8201Association Message Response[RFC5906]
0x8202Certificate Message Response[RFC5906]
0x8203Cookie Message Response[RFC5906]
0x8204Autokey Message Response[RFC5906]
0x8205Leapseconds Message Response[RFC5906]
0x8206Sign Message Response[RFC5906]
0x8207IFF Identity Message Response[RFC5906]
0x8208GQ Identity Message Response[RFC5906]
0x8209MV Identity Message Response[RFC5906]
0x8302Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0x8402Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0x8502Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0x8602Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0x8702Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0x8802Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0x8902Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0xC002Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0xC102Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0xC200No-Operation Error Response[RFC5906]
0xC201Association Message Error Response[RFC5906]
0xC202Certificate Message Error Response[RFC5906]
0xC203Cookie Message Error Response[RFC5906]
0xC204Autokey Message Error Response[RFC5906]
0xC205Leapseconds Message Error Response[RFC5906]
0xC206Sign Message Error Response[RFC5906]
0xC207IFF Identity Message Error Response[RFC5906]
0xC208GQ Identity Message Error Response[RFC5906]
0xC209MV Identity Message Error Response[RFC5906]
0xC302Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0xC402Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0xC502Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0xC602Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0xC702Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0xC802Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0xC902Reserved for historic reasonsRFC 9748
0xF000-0xFFFFReserved for Private or Experimental UseRFC 9748

5.Security Considerations

This document adds no new security considerations, as they are definedin the document that defines the extension. See the References column of theappropriate IANA registry.

6.Normative References

[RFC5905]
Mills, D.,Martin, J., Ed.,Burbank, J., andW. Kasch,"Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification",RFC 5905,DOI 10.17487/RFC5905,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.
[RFC5906]
Haberman, B., Ed. andD. Mills,"Network Time Protocol Version 4: Autokey Specification",RFC 5906,DOI 10.17487/RFC5906,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5906>.
[RFC7821]
Mizrahi, T.,"UDP Checksum Complement in the Network Time Protocol (NTP)",RFC 7821,DOI 10.17487/RFC7821,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7821>.
[RFC7822]
Mizrahi, T. andD. Mayer,"Network Time Protocol Version 4 (NTPv4) Extension Fields",RFC 7822,DOI 10.17487/RFC7822,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7822>.
[RFC8126]
Cotton, M.,Leiba, B., andT. Narten,"Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",BCP 26,RFC 8126,DOI 10.17487/RFC8126,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8573]
Malhotra, A. andS. Goldberg,"Message Authentication Code for the Network Time Protocol",RFC 8573,DOI 10.17487/RFC8573,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8573>.
[RFC8915]
Franke, D.,Sibold, D.,Teichel, K.,Dansarie, M., andR. Sundblad,"Network Time Security for the Network Time Protocol",RFC 8915,DOI 10.17487/RFC8915,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8915>.

Acknowledgements

The members of the NTP Working Group helped a great deal.Notable contributors include:

Author's Address

Rich Salz
Akamai Technologies
Email:rsalz@akamai.com

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2026 Movatter.jp