Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-23

Dan, thanks for your reviews. Authors, thanks for your responses. I entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa

> On Mar 9, 2020, at 11:40 AM, Dan Romascanu via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review result: Ready
> 
> 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-using-nts-for-ntp-23
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review Date: 2020-03-09
> IETF LC End Date: 2020-02-28
> IESG Telechat date: 2020-03-12
> 
> Summary:
> 
> Ready.
> 
> A very clear, well written, nicely organized document.
> 
> While reviewing version -22 of the document I had a minor non-blocking comment
> about marking unused entries in the tables in Sections 7.6, 7.7, 7.8 that may
> be used for future extensions as 'Reserved for Future Standard Use'.
> 
> An exchange of mails with the editors clarified that they are  following the
> recommendations at https://www.iana.org/help/protocol-registration>, under
> "Lists Versus Tables”, which say: > "For an example of an IANA Considerations
> section that uses tables, see RFC 6940. For an example that uses lists, see RFC
> 5804.”
> 
> While I still believe that explicit marking entries in the tables as 'Reserved
> for Future Standard Use' makes things more clear and avoids future problems, I
> can live with following the IANA recommendations above. This was a minor
> non-blocking issue anyway.
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art