[Ntp] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-ntp-interleaved-modes-07: (with COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ntp-interleaved-modes-07: No Objection

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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-interleaved-modes/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm joining the "Why SHOULD?" pile.  Accordingly, I support Roman's DISCUSS.

A SHOULD presents an implementer with a choice.  A specification using it
provides better service to implementers when they are fully informed of that
choice, why one or the other option is preferred, what interoperability impact
there is when deviating from the advice, etc.

In my case, the one I'm most interested in is this one in Section 2:

> When the server receives a request from a client, it SHOULD respond in the
interleaved mode if the following conditions are met:

Why would an implementer opt not to comply with this SHOULD?  What are the
implications of not doing so?

But I do have the same question about several other SHOULDs that Roman and
other ADs have covered.