IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] IANA request language

Watson Ladd <watson@cloudflare.com> Thu, 20 February 2020 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <watson@cloudflare.com>
X-Original-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69B741200C1 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:31:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cloudflare.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wOG39z4_yEH8 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:31:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x731.google.com (mail-qk1-x731.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::731]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA640120045 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:31:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x731.google.com with SMTP id a2so4655998qko.12 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:31:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudflare.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Vlonb4/0Pc1maSKwoRSQi1UBA15WHkUiYOsbcsTkFKU=; b=dmScasGgE1KHiycqy8iCO8ldJcWgC4l3izLV9JXDzs1fL4te8n/vzulLjf6+8WoQga 09zR3VTe8t6MHKo62/kP8yUYKP4WlwmmxsDfs22oW7htEs7z7oBderm7X+G64E5Gu6Ov +pGe5RwzhBuJ9mWB85RzOi5adxFSirMKWixF8=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Vlonb4/0Pc1maSKwoRSQi1UBA15WHkUiYOsbcsTkFKU=; b=H4kQyA2cEAjR/o1SPGKO7zTSKaQItNV1qQgBKDWr3AagyzDgdvu6yvdtp/XjYHa5X7 a93kGpjSZbreBMEb5jIK1W8JY7QStskldZ68H77meYT1elNhunQ58IWyGPP3lUA9UvFC MosafQjnAskrIHHk+AvnO1Ivp/wqNALZR+OPoEsvWzKXWRQzqYlaYlJofy7JW6Cuew9g oeTMYAo/w0EM42pkRe7S8YQnmDOmfVXuB2+tlda79xKqzkgdy1xMeR2m2zmsSBpwwUPA KQaupsrph7zmundt3oXcESD7EkTbTHHqywqFEbZ6SyWwNATIvit1tf+jq9BLqxxaa6Pl FWaw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWdz7RwVLuzDtsAQSzkazY9H5a2BqZBgN2j5vBT4d/VOCiBWnYH XQKkObUUyf0LfUgMRSJ4GpO8pvZxd328E2CvmNbsFsn0NtE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxEy7k719yeRnwUhtEp7k7hBX8lU5ea42HsSvjRQORswJSNJ9Nwt/isZS8ygmVZRIyeM+XvbEFRJq21EyKuNAg=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:9407:: with SMTP id w7mr29306804qkd.55.1582227076846; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:31:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200220192612.8E70840605C@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
In-Reply-To: <20200220192612.8E70840605C@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
From: Watson Ladd <watson@cloudflare.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:31:06 -0800
Message-ID: <CAN2QdAHFFhnmoK0sGGW+U8Kt=AS1x2gnV1qVP=s9BEyUuhhCUA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
Cc: NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/KT2w_mpy52W6OiiicR8sNm-Hymk>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] IANA request language
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ntp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ntp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ntp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 19:31:20 -0000

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 11:26 AM Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> wrote:
>
>
> marcus@dansarie.se said:
> > No objections here either, other than that it probably should have a "remove
> > before publication" note.
>
> It's not clear to me what that "it" binds to - the proposed new text or the
> whole section.
>
> I think the whole IANA Considerations section should get removed.
>
> The next section has a clear indication:
>   Implementation Status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION

IANA Considerations are generally not removed from published RFCs to
the best of my knowledge.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email