[Ntp] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-ntp-interleaved-modes-07: (with COMMENT)

Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 19 August 2024 08:55 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <172405775203.1901288.18299157306644504352@dt-datatracker-6df4c9dcf5-t2x2k>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2024 01:55:52 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: C4CISJ45ASFZIVJYFP2SEDTRW4MUB5KR
CC: draft-ietf-ntp-interleaved-modes@ietf.org, ntp-chairs@ietf.org, ntp@ietf.org, odonoghue@isoc.org
Reply-To: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>
Subject: [Ntp] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-ntp-interleaved-modes-07: (with COMMENT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/I6WMA9oWnAnoEbjCHiD0yqq7ntU>

Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ntp-interleaved-modes-07: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle 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 on this document.

In several places the document uses SHOULD (23 occurrences) but lacks text
about why these are SHOULD - not all of them, but I suggest the authors do a
review of all of them. I agree with John Klensin, who formulated it very
clearly: If SHOULD is used, then it must be accompanied by at least one of:

(1) A general description of the character of the exceptions and/or in what
areas exceptions are likely to arise. Examples are fine but, except in
plausible and rare cases, not enumerated lists.

(2) A statement about what should be done, or what the considerations are, if
the "SHOULD" requirement is not met.

(3) A statement about why it is not a MUST.

I believe some context around these would be enough to solve my concern, and
give the reader enough context to make an informed decision. If you believe the
context is there, and I just missed it, please do let me know.

[Ntp] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft… Francesca Palombini via Datatracker