[Gen-art] Antw: [Ntp] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ntp-bcp-10

>>> Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> schrieb am 14.12.2018 um 00:12 in
Nachricht <154474273232.32079.9486696704928473641@ietfa.amsl.com>:
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> I am the assigned Gen‑ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen‑ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft‑ietf‑ntp‑bcp‑10
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review Date: 2018‑12‑13
> IETF LC End Date: 2018‑10‑08
> IESG Telechat date: 2018‑12‑20
> 
> Summary: Ready (but with nits that should be considered) for publication as

> a
> BCP RFC
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> With a couple of exceptions, the changes between ‑07 and ‑10 are very
helpful ‑
> the document reads much more naturally.
> 
> One of the changes was to be more specific with actors ‑ many uses of "you"

> or
> "your" were replaced with "the operator" for example. But this wasn't done
> throughout the document ("you" and "your" still appear frequently), and in 
> at
> least one place the change caused a sentence to stop making sense: "If the 
> time
> on your network has to be correct close to 100% of the time, then even if 
> you
> are using a satellite‑based system, operators need to plan for those rare
> instances when the system is unavailable (or wrong!)."

Independent of the "you issue", I think the sentence ("If the time on your
network
has to be correct close to 100% of the time, then even if you are using a
satellite-based system, operators need to plan for those rare instances when
the system is unavailable (or wrong!).") is too complicated anyway. Maybe it's
as simple as "Operators should be aware that even high quality time sources may
fail."

> 
> I strongly encourage yet another pass focusing on removing "you" and "your"

> to
> the extent possible.
> 
> The changes also included using 2119 keywords much more often.
Unfortunately
> many of the new uses are not appropriate. "Vendors MUST" and several 
> instances
> of "It is RECOMMENDED" are particularly jarring. Moving 2119 to be an
> Informational reference is also incorrect if you are going to use those 
> terms
> in this document.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> ntp@ietf.org 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp 