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

Just to be clear, the fact that the shepherd writeup wasn't updated after
the WG changed its mind on what status to go for isn't the one thing that
drew my ballot.  I noted a few other aspects I'd like to investigate here,
as did others.

Brian's proposed text seems like it might be an improvement.  I'll look at
it in context after tomorrow's telechat when I've had a chance to talk to
the other ADs that also commented on the document's status and intent.

-MSK

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 7:18 PM Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org> wrote:

> Daniel,
>
> I don't think it is fair for you to call this a "switcheroo" without
> appropriate consensus. At this stage, there were a number of folks
> including the author who could live with either Historic or Information,
> one who wanted Standards track, one who wanted Historic, and a few who said
> "not Historic". We have discussed this ad nauseum at this point. I am ready
> for the IESG to provide their guidance on what it should be. I believe
> there are arguments for both Historic and Informational... and many many
> emails written to debate this issue.
>
> Karen
>
> On 8/26/20, 4:46 PM, "Daniel Franke" <dfoxfranke@gmail.com> 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
>     <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
>
>