Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9327 <draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-11> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Brian,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!-- [rfced] Would updating the document title to include the abbreviation for Network Time Protocol Version 4 be helpful?

Original:
Control Messages Protocol for Use with Network Time Protocol Version 4

Perhaps: 
Control Messages Protocol for Use with Network Time Protocol Version
4 (NTPv4)
-->


2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
     title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->


3) <!-- [rfced] We note that in-text citations were sometimes read as
     part of the sentence and sometimes used as a silent reference.
     As https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/ recommends these
     be used consistently, we will update as seen in the example
     below unless we hear objection.

Original: 
RFC 1305 [RFC1305] described a set of control messages for use
within the Network Time Protocol (NTP) when a comprehensive network management
solution was not available.

Perhaps: 
[RFC1305] described a set of control messages for use within the
Network Time Protocol (NTP) when a comprehensive network management solution
was not available.
-->


4) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We've added a Terminology section and normative
     reference entries to match the use of BCP 14 keywords throughout
     the document. Please let us know of any objections.
-->	


5) <!--[rfced] We note that RFC 2460 has been obsoleted by RFC 8200.  As
     this document is "Historic", please let us know which course of
     action is correct.  Is the mention something that only exists in
     RFC 2460?  Or should the reader be pointed to the current
     version?

a) Update mentions of RFC 2460 to instead point to RFC 8200.

b) Update the text to mention that RFC 2460 has been obsoleted by RFC 8200, such
 as:

..and 1280 octets for IPv6 (see [RFC2460], which has since been obsoleted by [RF
C8200]).

For either a) or b), we would add a corresponding reference entry for RFC 8200.
-->


6) <!-- [rfced] FYI: We've added titles to tables throughout the
     document. Please let us know of any objections or changes that
     need to be made.
-->


7) <!-- [rfced] What is "one" referring to in this sentence? 

Original: 
As in the read status command, the association identifier is used to
identify which one, zero for the system clock and nonzero for a peer clock.

Perhaps: 
As in the read status command, the association identifier is used to
identify the correct variable for each clock: zero for the system clock and nonzero for a peer clock.
-->	


8)  <!--[rfced] Please review our update to use a list for the following text.  

Original:

Internet addresses are represented as follows: IPv4 addresses are
written in the form [n.n.n.n], where n is in decimal notation and the
brackets are optional; IPv6 addresses are formulated based on the
guidelines defined in [RFC5952].  Timestamps, including reference,
originate, receive and transmit values, as well as the logical clock,
are represented in units of seconds and fractions, preferably in
hexadecimal notation.  Delay, offset, dispersion and distance values
are represented in units of milliseconds and fractions, preferably in
decimal notation.  All other values are represented as-is, preferably
in decimal notation.

Current:
 Representations of note are as follows:

   *  IPv4 internet addresses are written in the form [n.n.n.n], where n
      is in decimal notation and the brackets are optional

   *  IPv6 internet addresses are formulated based on the guidelines
      defined in [RFC5952].

   *  Timestamps (including reference, originate, receive, and transmit
      values) and the logical clock are represented in units of seconds
      and fractions, preferably in hexadecimal notation.

   *  Delay, offset, dispersion, and distance values are represented in
      units of milliseconds and fractions, preferably in decimal
      notation.

   *  All other values are represented as is, preferably in decimal
      notation.
-->


9) <!--[rfced] Please review the updates to the following text to ensure
     we've retained your intended meaning.  Perhaps further rephrasing
     such as "...or is comprised of the seven characters" might be
     easier to read?

Original: 
If the command data is empty or the seven characters "ifstats", the
associated statistics, status and counters for each local address are
returned.  If the command data is the characters "addr_restrictions" then the
set of IPv4 remote address restrictions followed by the set of IPv6 remote
address restrictions (access control lists) are returned.

Current:
If the command data is empty or is the seven characters "ifstats", the
associated statistics, status, and counters for each local address are
returned.  If the command data is the characters "addr_restrictions",
then the set of IPv4 remote address restrictions followed by the set
of IPv6 remote address restrictions (access control lists) are
returned.
-->


10) <!--[rfced] Please review our update to the list style in the Security Considerations section and let us know any objections.-->


11) <!--[rfced] Would a clarification of this text be helpful to readers?
     We see past draft versions with D. Mills and B. Haberman, but not
     T. Plunkett.

Original:
Tim Plunkett created the original version of this document.-->


12) <!-- [rfced] We had the following questions regarding terminology that appeared throughout the document.
	 
a) Please review the way bit names and abbreviations are capped,
quoted, in parentheses, and the placement of the abbreviation (i.e.,
should it be More Bit (M) or More (M) Bit)?

These are a few examples of inconsistencies/uses:

Response Bit (R) vs. response (R) bit vs. "R" bit vs R bit
E (error) bit vs. "E" bit
More Bit (M) vs. More Bit vs. more data (M) bit vs. more-data (M) bit

b) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used
inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how
they may be made consistent.

opcode vs. OpCode
Association ID vs. association identifier 
NTP mode 6 vs. NTP Mode 6
NTP Mode 6 control messages vs. NTP mode 6 control messages vs. NTP Control Message vs. control messages (mode 6)
System Status Word vs. system status word
Read Clock Variables command vs. read clock variables command
Write Clock Variables command vs. write clock variables command
Remote Facility vs. remote facility 
Request Code vs. request code


-->


13) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide
     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> 
and let us know if any changes are needed. For example, please consider whether the following should be updated: sanity and whitespace.

In addition, please consider whether "traditional*" should be updated
for clarity.  While the NIST website
<https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1>
indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous.
"Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone.
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/mc/mf

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2022/10/21

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
your approval.

Planning your review 
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

   Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
   that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
   follows:

   <!-- [rfced] ... -->

   These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

   Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
   coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
   agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

   Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
   change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
   - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
   - contact information
   - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

   Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
   RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
   (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).

*  Semantic markup

   Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
   content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
   and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
   <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

   Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
   formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
   reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
   limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
include:

   *  your coauthors
   
   *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)

   *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
      IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
      responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
     
   *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
      to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
      list:
     
     *  More info:
        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
     
     *  The archive itself:
        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

     *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
        of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
        If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
        have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
        [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
        its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
 — OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files 
-----

The files are available here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9327.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9327.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9327.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9327.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9327-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9327-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9327-xmldiff1.html

The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
diff files of the XML.  

Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9327.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9327.form.xml


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9327

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9327 (draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-11)

Title            : Control Messages Protocol for Use with Network Time Protocol Version 4
Author(s)        : B. Haberman, Ed.
WG Chair(s)      : Karen O'Donoghue, Dieter Sibold

Area Director(s) : Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke