Re: [Ntp] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-09: (with COMMENT)

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Hey Barry,

On 8/26/20 11:11 PM, Barry Leiba via Datatracker wrote:
> Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-09: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I support Murray’s DISCUSS.
> 
> To add to the discussion: It’s not clear to me why either a Historic or an
> Informational RFC is needed, to repeat information that is in an Obsolete RFC. 
> It would be one thing if these were for current implementation, but the draft
> is clear that they’re not.  Then why isn’t it sufficient that they are
> documented in 1305?  Why does there need to be a non-Obsolete RFC that has them?

Two reasons that were brought up within the WG...

1. This version includes some additional mode 6 commands that were
developed after the publication of RFC 1305. The WG felt there was a
need to document those new commands.

2. The changes to the Abstract and the Intro proposed to address Éric's
concerns should make it clear that there are uses for mode 6 WRT RFC
5905. The WG wanted a current reference built off of NTPv4 rather than
the obsolete version published with NTPv3.

Regards,
Brian