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

[Ulrich Windl <[e-mail]>]

>>> Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]> schrieb am 21.08.2020 um
16:32
in Nachricht <[e-mail]>:
> 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
> [e-mail] 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp