Re: [Ntp] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

The change from "Historic" to "Informational" was a
post-IETF-Last-Call switcheroo which I believe was performed without
appropriate consensus. I stand by "Historic" for the reasons discussed
in my secdir review.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 3:48 PM Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker
<noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-09: Discuss
>
> 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/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I find myself in agreement with Eric Vyncke's remarks about a document claiming
> to provide "current but historic" protocol details.  Is this because NTPv3 is
> still in use?  But the title talks about NTPv4.  Shouldn't this document have
> "Historic" status?  The shepherd writeup says that's the intent, but that's not
> what the document's title page says.
>
> Let's sort this out.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I found the same typos Roman did.  A quick pass with a spell checker might
> speed things through the RFC Editor slightly.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> ntp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp