[Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-08.txt> (Control Messages Protocol for Use with Network Time Protocol Version 4) to Historic RFC

Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> Thu, 04 June 2020 07:32 UTC

Return-Path: <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
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 973FA3A0859; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 00:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 I4ItAuQCS_DZ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 00:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.uni-regensburg.de (mx4.uni-regensburg.de [194.94.157.149]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 682563A0853; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 00:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 3991A6000052; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 09:31:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.5.51]) by mx4.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 278F5600004A; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 09:31:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 04 Jun 2020 09:31:46 +0200
Message-Id: <5ED8A360020000A1000394F0@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 18.2.1
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 09:31:44 +0200
From: "Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
To: <resnick@episteme.net>,<last-call@ietf.org>
Cc: <ek.ietf@gmail.com>,<draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds@ietf.org>, "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>, "ntp-chairs@ietf.org" <ntp-chairs@ietf.org>, <odonoghue@isoc.org>
References: <159103987149.20717.15985853306560767734@ietfa.amsl.com> <14808_1591124438_5ED6A1D6_14808_2895_1_45F5F313-BFC6-48BB-B5A3-D47C48AE87D6@episteme.net>
In-Reply-To: <14808_1591124438_5ED6A1D6_14808_2895_1_45F5F313-BFC6-48BB-B5A3-D47C48AE87D6@episteme.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/L2WW6kYVwtxDbWk1n6gdDhGX_wU>
Subject: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-08.txt> (Control Messages Protocol for Use with Network Time Protocol Version 4) to Historic RFC
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, 04 Jun 2020 07:32:02 -0000

>>> "Pete Resnick" <resnick@episteme.net> schrieb am 02.06.2020 um 19:17 in
Nachricht
<14808_1591124438_5ED6A1D6_14808_2895_1_45F5F313-BFC6-48BB-B5A3-D47C48AE87D6@epi
teme.net>:
> This use of the "Historic" status seems utterly bizarre to me. It's 
> certainly not how it's described in 2026.
> 
> 1305 has already been obsoleted by 5905. This document simply gives 
> information about what those control messages were and indicates that 
> they ought no longer be used. This sounds like a fine candidate for 

"They ought no longer to be used": ... once there is a well-established replacement!

So what to use instead? Mode-6 commands are essential for monitoring the service.

> Informational status. When 5905 (or it's successors) advance to 
> Standard, this document can be included in the STD.
> 
> If eventually you want to move a document to Historic, it would be 1305.
> 
> I don't think publishing this straight to Historic makes sense.

With the argument given above, I also wouldn't name it "historic".