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

Hi,

I have reviewed this document and consider it almost ready for IETF Last
Call, with the following comments:

1) Title: As an Informational document, the title should be changed as
Ulrich has suggested to perhaps
    "Design Considerations for NTPv5" or "Design Considerations for NTPv4
Successors" (w/ a nod to Harlan)
    - keeping "Requirements" in the title is not acceptable in an
Informational document

2) Keywords: As an Informational document, the keywords "MUST" and "SHALL"
should never be used
    and instead should be globally replaced with "SHOULD"

3) Keywords: Multiple instances of lowercase "should" (e.g., section 3.1,
paragraph 2) appear to be intended
    to be "SHOULD" (a recommendation)
    - all lowercase uses of "should" should be replaced with either
"SHOULD" or "can/could/" (consistent with
    ISO editorial rules)

4) Keywords: Multiple uppercase keywords should *never* be used in a single
sentence (e.g., section 4.1,
    paragraph 2), because this style adds inherent ambiguity to the
recommendations.

5) Leap Seconds: I suggest that a discussion of Leap Seconds and Smearing
should be included in this
    document - the current text seems reasonable to me.

6) Backwards Compatibility w/ NTPv4: I strongly agree that NTPv4
compatibility is not important.
    - core Internet protocols (such as NTP) evolve over time and explicit
version fields are the right path.

Cheers,
- Ira

On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 3:46 AM Windl, Ulrich <u.windl@ukr.de> wrote:

> Hi!
>
>
>
> Maybe once the NTPv5 spec is final we can rename the requirements to an
> informative RFC titled “considerations defining NTPv5” or similar. So maybe
> some interesting considerations that did not make it in the official spec
> would be preserved for readers with historical interest. I’m not deeply in
> the RFC making process, however.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Ulrich
>
>
>
> *From:* ntp <ntp-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Salz, Rich
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 14, 2023 6:29 PM
> *To:* Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com>; NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* [EXT] Re: [Ntp] Fwd: Antwort: Re: WGLC -
> draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv5-requirements
>
>
>
> Ø  I would go further and question why this document needs to be advanced
> beyond the working group at all.
>
>
>
> I strongly support this.
>
>
>
> Another advantage is that RFCs never change, whereas we can always just
> post a new draft when we want to make changes.
>
>
>
> I believe other WGs have done this kind of thing.
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> ntp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
>