<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!-- This template is for creating an Internet Draft using xml2rfc,
     which is available here: http://xml.resource.org. -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!-- One method to get references from the online citation libraries.
     There has to be one entity for each item to be referenced. 
     An alternate method (rfc include) is described in the references. -->
<!ENTITY RFC5905 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5905.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5906 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5906.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2827 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2827.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2434 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2434.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3552 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3552.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<!-- used by XSLT processors -->
<!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs), 
     please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. -->
<!-- Below are generally applicable Processing Instructions (PIs) that most I-Ds might want to use.
     (Here they are set differently than their defaults in xml2rfc v1.32) -->
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space 
     (using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
<!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-stenn-ntp-i-do-01" ipr="trust200902">
  <!-- category values: std, bcp, info, exp, and historic
     ipr values: full3667, noModification3667, noDerivatives3667
     you can add the attributes updates="NNNN" and obsoletes="NNNN" 
     they will automatically be output with "(if approved)" -->

  <!-- ***** FRONT MATTER ***** -->

  <front>
    <!-- The abbreviated title is used in the page header - it is only necessary if the 
         full title is longer than 39 characters -->

    <title abbrev="Network Time Protocol I-Do">Network Time
    Protocol I-Do Extension Field</title>

    <!-- add 'role="editor"' below for the editors if appropriate -->

    <!-- Another author who claims to be an editor -->

    <author fullname="Harlan Stenn" initials="H." surname="Stenn">
      <organization>Network Time Foundation</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>P.O. Box 918</street>

          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->

          <city>Talent, OR</city>

          <region/>

          <code>97540</code>

          <country>US</country>
        </postal>

        <phone/>

        <email>stenn@nwtime.org</email>

        <!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
      </address>
    </author>

<!-- other authors -->

    <date month="April" year="2016"/>

    <!-- If the month and year are both specified and are the current ones,
         xml2rfc will fill in the current day for you. If only the current
         year is specified, xml2rfc will fill in the current day and month
         for you. If the year is not the current one, it is necessary to
         specify at least a month (xml2rfc assumes day="1" if not specified
         for the purpose of calculating the expiry date).  With drafts it is
         normally sufficient to specify just the year. -->

    <!-- Meta-data Declarations -->

    <area>General</area>

    <workgroup>Internet Engineering Task Force</workgroup>

    <!-- WG name at the upperleft corner of the doc,
         IETF is fine for individual submissions.  
	 If this element is not present, the default is "Network Working
         Group", which is used by the RFC Editor as a nod to the history of
         the IETF. -->

    <keyword>NTP</keyword>

    <!-- Keywords will be incorporated into HTML output
         files in a meta tag but they have no effect on text or nroff
         output. If you submit your draft to the RFC Editor, the
         keywords will be used for the search engine. -->

    <abstract>
      <t>The first implementation of NTPv4 was released in 2003. NTPv4 is
      defined by <xref target="RFC5905">RFC 5905</xref>.  It contains a
      public-key security protocol, autokey, which is defined
      by <xref target="RFC5906">RFC 5906</xref>.  Until very recently,
      autokey has been the only defined "user" of NTP packet Extension
      Fields.  New proposals for extension fields are being written and
      there is currently no convenient way to learn if a remote instance of
      NTP supports any extension fields or not.  This proposal contains a
      method to tell a remote instance of NTP what we support, and ask what
      they support.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction">
      <t>The first implementation of NTPv4 was released in 2003. NTPv4 is
      defined by <xref target="RFC5905">RFC 5905</xref>.  It contains a
      public-key security protocol, autokey, which is defined
      by <xref target="RFC5906">RFC 5906</xref>.  Until very recently,
      autokey has been the only defined "user" of NTP packet Extension
      Fields.  New proposals for extension fields are being written and
      there is currently no convenient way to learn if a remote instance of
      NTP supports any extension fields or not.  This proposal contains a
      method to tell a remote instance of NTP what we support, and ask what
      they support.</t>

      <section title="Requirements Language">
        <t>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 <xref
        target="RFC2119">RFC 2119</xref>.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="The I-Do Extension Field">
      <t>If an incoming packet contains an unrecognized extension field,
      one of two things will happen.  Either that extension field will be
      ignored, or the entire packet will be dropped.  If an extension
      field is present there ordinarily SHOULD be a MAC following the
      extension field.  Some extension fields are unable to be "signed" by a
      MAC, regardless of whether or not that MAC is a traditional MAC or an
      extension field MAC.</t>

      <t><figure title="NTP Extension Field: REFID Suggestion">
          <artwork name="NTP Extension Field: REFID Suggestion"><![CDATA[
 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           |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ 
|            I-Do 1             |             ...               | 
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ 
|            I-Do N             |            Padding            | 
+---------------------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>

      <t>Field Type: TBD (Recommendation for IANA: 0x0007 (I-Do, MAC
      required), 0x2007 (I-Do, MAC OPTIONAL), 0x8007 (I-Do Response, MAC
      required), 0xA007 I-Do Response, MAC OPTIONAL))</t>
      <t>Field Length: as needed</t>
      <t>Payload: An enumeration of the suppported base Field Types,
	followed by any padding, 0x0000, needed to fill the payload to the
	desired 32-bit boundary.</t>
      <t>Example: A system that wants to advertise support for Autokey and
      I-Do, sending to a system that wants to advertise support for I-Do,
      NTS, and MAC-As-Extension-Field
	<figure title="NTP Extension Field: I-Do">
          <artwork name="NTP Extension Field: I-Do"><![CDATA[
 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 (0x2007)        |   Field Length (0x0008)       |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ 
|            0x0007             |           0x0002              | 
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+]]></artwork>
        </figure>
	<figure title="NTP Extension Field: I-Do Response">
          <artwork name="NTP Extension Field: I-Do Response"><![CDATA[
 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 (0xA007)        |   Field Length (0x000a)       |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ 
|            0x0003             |           0x0004              | 
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ 
|            0x0007             |           0x0000              | 
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>
      <t>The sender of any I-Do extension field MUST send an extension field
      with a Field Type of 0x0007 (I-Do, MAC required) or 0x2007 (I-Do, MAC
      OPTIONAL) and SHOULD include a paylod with any 0x0000 padding values
      after enumerating the supported base Extension Field Types.  The
      responding system MUST reply with an extension field with a Field Type
      of 0x8007 (I-Do Response, MAC required) or 0xA007 (I-Do Response, MAC
      OPTIONAL), and SHOULD include a paylod with any 0x0000 padding
      values after enumerating the supported base Extension Field Types.</t>
      <t>The following information is included here until it is specified in
      a better location.  If the Field Type does not have bit 0x2000 set,
      there MUST be a MAC included later in the packet for this field to be
      accepted.  If the Field Type has bit 0x2000 set, the presence of a MAC
      later in the packet is OPTIONAL.</t>
      <t>Any system that receives an I-Do extension field as either an
      "offer" or a "response" SHOULD scan the entire payload looking for
      nonzero values that specify the capabilities of the remote
      association.</t>
      <t>Any system that receives an I-Do "offer", 0x0007 or 0x2007, SHOULD
      reply with an I-Do "response", 0x8007 or 0xA007.</t>
      <t>Any system that sends an I-Do "offer" or "response" may send as few
      or as many of its supported Field Types as it chooses.  At any
      subsequent time, either side may re-negotiate the list of supported
      field types it is prepared to accept from the other system by sending
      a new I-Do extension field.</t>
      <t>The most-recently received I-Do list replaces any previous I-Do
      list.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>The author wishes to acknowledge the contributions of Joey
      Saccadonuts.</t>
    </section>

    <!-- Possibly a 'Contributors' section ... -->

    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>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.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>Additional information TBD</t>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <!--  *****BACK MATTER ***** -->

  <back>
    <!-- References split into informative and normative -->

    <!-- There are 2 ways to insert reference entries from the citation libraries:
     1. define an ENTITY at the top, and use "ampersand character"RFC2629; here (as shown)
     2. simply use a PI "less than character"?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119.xml"?> here
        (for I-Ds: include="reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml")

     Both are cited textually in the same manner: by using xref elements.
     If you use the PI option, xml2rfc will, by default, try to find included files in the same
     directory as the including file. You can also define the XML_LIBRARY environment variable
     with a value containing a set of directories to search.  These can be either in the local
     filing system or remote ones accessed by http (http://domain/dir/... ).-->

    <references title="Normative References">
      <!--?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"?-->

      &RFC2119;

      <!--?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5905.xml"?-->

      &RFC5905;

      <!--?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5906.xml"?-->

      &RFC5906;
    </references>

    <!-- Here we use entities that we defined at the beginning. -->

    <!-- SW: Except that we're not really using these...

    <references title="Informative References">
      &RFC3552;

      &I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis;
 
    </references> 
     -->

    <!--
    <section anchor="app-additional" title="Additional Stuff">
      <t>This becomes an Appendix.</t>
    </section>
-->

    <!-- Change Log

v00 2016-03-NN  HMS Initial Submission   
                                                                                        -->
  </back>
</rfc>
