Re: [Ntp] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-09: (with COMMENT)

[Hal Murray <[e-mail]>]

[e-mail] said:
>> With a document of this type, I am not sure if all of these type codes
>> and bit settings should be IANA registries or not.

I don't think it's appropriate to standardize the status words. 

> The WG discussed this option several years ago and decided that there wasn't
> any expectation of new mode 6 commands being added beyond the ones added
> between RFC 1305 and RFC 5905. 

That opens an interesting can of worms.

A significant fraction of the document is describing the details of 4 status 
words.  There is no corresponding description of the variables you can 
read/write via the Read Variables command and friends.

I think the status word descriptions should be moved to an appendix.  Some 
introductory material needs to explain that the details of what you can 
read/write are vendor dependent.  If you are going to use this document, you 
also need documentation (or code) for the implementation you are going to 
talke to that enumerates the names of variables you can access and describes 
their meaning.  RFC 5905 covers some of that for one implementation.  It 
doesn't describe the status words.  Their description is included here so you 
don't have to dig it out of the code.

-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.