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

[Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian,

Thank you for your response and guidance. We have updated our files as requested.  Please review these changes carefully and let us know if further updates are necessary.

  The files have been posted here (please refresh):
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9327.txt
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9327.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9327.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9327.xml

  The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9327-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9327-rfcdiff.html (comprehensive rfcdiff)
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9327-auth48diff.html (last version to this one)

  The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here:
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9327

Thank you.

RFC Editor/mf


> On Oct 22, 2022, at 3:26 PM, Brian Haberman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I approve the publication of this draft... Please see inline responses.
> 
> On 10/21/22 11:04 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> 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)
>> -->
> 
> NTPv4 does not get used at all in the body of the document, so I don't see a need to make this addition to the title.
> 
>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
>>      title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
> 
> NTP, mode 6, mode 7
> 
>> 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.
>> -->
> 
> No objection.
> 
>> 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.
>> -->	
> 
> No objection.
> 
>> 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.
>> -->
> 
> All references to RFC 2460 can be replaced by 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.
>> -->
> 
> No objection.
> 
>> 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.
>> -->	
> 
> I agree with the proposed re-write for clarity.
> 
>> 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.
>> -->
> 
> The bulleted list is fine.
> 
>> 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.
>> -->
> 
> This update is fine.
> 
>> 10) <!--[rfced] Please review our update to the list style in the Security Considerations section and let us know any objections.-->
> 
> No objection.
> 
>> 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.-->
> 
> The original acknowledgements section is correct.
> 
>> 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
> 
> The original text in the draft is correct. It is consistent with the original definitions described in RFC 1305.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> The following clarifications (except for one) come directly from RFC 1305...
> 
>> opcode vs. OpCode
> 
> opcode
> 
>> Association ID vs. association identifier
> 
> Association ID
> 
>> NTP mode 6 vs. NTP Mode 6
> 
> NTP mode 6
> 
>> NTP Mode 6 control messages vs. NTP mode 6 control messages vs. NTP Control Message vs. control messages (mode 6)
> 
> NTP control messages... as this document talks about both mode 6 and mode 7
> 
>> System Status Word vs. system status word
> 
> system status word
> 
>> Read Clock Variables command vs. read clock variables command
> 
> read clock variables command
> 
>> Write Clock Variables command vs. write clock variables command
> 
> write clock variables command
> 
>> Remote Facility vs. remote facility
> 
> Remote Facility
> 
>> Request Code vs. request code
> 
> 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.
> 
> "sanity" can be changed to "logical"
> "whitespace" can be changed to "space characters"
> 
>> 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.
>> -->
> 
> "Traditionally" can be dropped from the sentence.
> 
> Regards,
> Brian
> 
>> 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