[Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-09: (with COMMENT)

Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> Mon, 24 August 2020 05:52 UTC

Return-Path: <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
X-Original-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7C5E3A0A47; Sun, 23 Aug 2020 22:52:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7E5djpdljwMt; Sun, 23 Aug 2020 22:52:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.uni-regensburg.de (mx2.uni-regensburg.de [IPv6:2001:638:a05:137:165:0:3:bdf8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 657DC3A0A43; Sun, 23 Aug 2020 22:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 808D8600004E; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 07:52:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.5.51]) by mx2.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9855B600004D; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 07:52:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 07:52:28 +0200
Message-Id: <5F43559A020000A10003AC33@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 18.2.1
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 07:52:26 +0200
From: "Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
To: <evyncke@cisco.com>,"The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: <draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds@ietf.org>, "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>, "ntp-chairs@ietf.org" <ntp-chairs@ietf.org>,<odonoghue@isoc.org>
References: <159802037308.10371.11780852739141456472@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <159802037308.10371.11780852739141456472@ietfa.amsl.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/B9C8EJEnyUgNc9wYfQX5Nsq6KL8>
Subject: [Ntp] =?utf-8?q?Antw=3A_=5BEXT=5D__=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_No_Objec?= =?utf-8?q?tion_on_draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-09=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ntp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ntp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ntp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 05:52:42 -0000

>>> Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> schrieb am 21.08.2020 um
16:32
in Nachricht <159802037308.10371.11780852739141456472@ietfa.amsl.com>om>:
> Éric Vyncke 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you for the work put into this document.
> 
> First, I must admit that this is the first time I see an IETF stream
> informational document for the specification of a control protocol used by 
> an
> obsoleted RFC 1305. This document is much easier to read than the appendix B

> of
> RFC 1305 and the author takes care to write that this spec is not mandatory

> to
> implement but I really wonder why this document exists ?
> 
> Moreover the abstract says "The goal of this document is to provide a 
> current,
> but historic, " so why not publishing this document as 'historic' rather 
> than
> 'informal' (datatracker seems to allow this modification).

I don't know what qualifies as "historic", but the protocol is implemented in
the _current_ NTPv4 implementation, while the specification was left ot from
the NTP v4 RFC. I also think NTP would be quite useless without that mode-6
protocol or a well-established substitute for that (which does not exist yet
AFAIK).

> 
> Please find below a couple of non-blocking COMMENTs (and I would appreciate

> a
> reply to each of my COMMENTs) and some NITs.
> 
> I hope that this helps to improve the document,
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -éric
> 
> == COMMENTS ==
> 
> -- Section 1.1 --
> Suggest to replace 'IP' by 'IPv4' in 'IP hosts are not required to 
> reassemble
> datagrams larger than 576' + add some text that this document applies the 
> same
> limitation to IPv6.
> 
> -- Section 2 --
> Possibly linked to my lack of understanding of the purpose of this
document,
> but, if applicable only to NTPv3, then should the Version number clearly
> specified to be 3 ?

...or specify what the version number really is intended to express.

> 
> -- Section 3.2 --
> Suggest to add 'bit' after 'Peer Status' in the table headings to make it 
> clear.
> 
> -- Section 4 --
> It will probably be useful to expand 'MRU' at first use.
> 
> In the "Read ordered list (11):" it is not clear how the entries are ordered

> in
> the case of "ifstats" is it per local address ? Are IPv4 addresses before 
> IPv6
> addresses ?

Is this ordering really important?


> 
> -- Appendix A --
> Is there a reason why the mode 7 is in the appendix and not in the main body

> ?

Because it's a different (and really obsolete) protocol. At least per
specification, maybe not by implementation.

> 
> == NITS ==
> 
> -- Section 2 --
> s/Conains/Contains/
> 
> -- Section 4 --
> Should there be a comma in 'seven characters "ifstats" the associated' 
> before
> 'the associated' ?
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> ntp@ietf.org 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp