[Ntp] Fwd: Antwort: Re: WGLC - draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv5-requirements

[Daniel Franke <[e-mail]>]

Sent yesterday but forgot to copy the list

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Daniel Franke <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 15:28
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Antwort: Re: WGLC - draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv5-requirements
To: <kristof.teichel=[e-mail]>


On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 3:18 PM <kristof.teichel=[e-mail]>
wrote:

> I find this a bit difficult - after all, the intended status for the RFC
is 'informational', and so I guess less stringent criteria apply.
> Also, the document started out as an effort to strictly report on the
WG's consensus on what would be needed for NTPv5 (as an upcoming standards
track document).
> The issue is: little of that seems reflected in the current requirements
draft, definitely not obvious to a new reader.
> The document never (?) seems to state that it intends to report WG
consensus; it constantly uses requirement keywords (MUST, SHOULD etc.) like
a specification would; it rarely (and never with an explicit explanation,
IIRC) talks about an upcoming standards track document that it is supposed
to support.
> This lack of clarifying the document's overall role (supporting the
creation of the actual NTPv5 spec later by reporting the WG's current
consensus on what's required), in and of itself, is a blocking issue (#1)
for me.

I would go further and question why this document needs to be advanced
beyond the working group at all. It seems to have no archival value
and should be of no interest to anyone except those who plan to
participate in drafting of the final spec. Why not just have a
consensus call as to whether it correctly reflects the WG's views
about what shape NTPv5 should take, and then move on? What benefit is
there in progressing it to an RFC?