Re: [Ntp] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-ntp-interleaved-modes-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Miroslav Lichvar <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 09:39:47AM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> Hence, I propose three possible alternatives:
> 
> (1) Change this document to somehow make use of NTPs extension mechanism and continue down the path of publishing as a proposed standard.  This, I think, would probably entail taking the document back to the WG.
> 
> (2) Change the document status to Informational rather than Standards Track, modifying the text to focus on documenting how some implementations work rather than as an endorsement from IETF that this is the right way to modify the NTP protocol.

I'd prefer the second choice. Would anyone from the WG oppose that?

> (3) Alternatively, if the authors/WG believe that publishing that document as proposed standard is definitely the right choice, then I would be willing to change my ballot position to abstain.  I.e., I don't agree with what is being done here, but neither will I block progression of the document, given that you say that this modification does not cause operational issues in practice.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar