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

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

To be clear, the change occurred due to the discussion during IETF Last
Call. And the shepherd writeup was not updated to capture the result of
that discussion.

Harlan Stenn did point out that mode 6 is still in use by NTP
implementations, including NTPv4 implementations.

In response to Éric's feedback, I proposed the following changes to the
document:

Abstract
--------

OLD:
The goal of this document is to provide a current, but historic,
description of the control messages as described in RFC 1305 and any
additional commands implemented in NTP.

NEW:
The goal of this document is to provide an updated description of the
control messages described in RFC 1305 in order to conform with the
updated Network Time Protocol specification documented in RFC 5905.

Introduction
------------

OLD:
The control messages are described here as a historical record given
their use within NTPv4.

NEW:
The control messages are described here as a current reference for use
with an RFC 5905 implementation.

Regards,
Brian

On 8/26/20 4:45 PM, Daniel Franke wrote:
> 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
> <[e-mail]> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp