[Ntp] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ntp-interleaved-modes-05: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ntp-interleaved-modes-05: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-interleaved-modes/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. I really like the idea behind
this I-D: simple and smart ;-)

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

-- Section 2 --
"  The server MAY separate the timestamps
   by IP addresses, but it SHOULD NOT separate them by port numbers,
   i.e.  clients are allowed to change their source port between
   requests."
With draft-ietf-ntp-port-randomization in mind, please change the "clients are
allowed" into "clients are recommended to"

"  Both servers and clients that support the interleaved mode MUST NOT
   send a packet that has a transmit timestamp equal to the receive
   timestamp"
Will it always be possible to comply with the above "MUST NOT" ?