Subject: [TICTOC]Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile-26: (with COMMENT)
From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
To: "The IESG" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 08:48:44 -0700
List-Id: Timing over IP Connection and Transfer of Clock BOF <tictoc.ietf.org>

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile-26: 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-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile/

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

This seems like what RFC 2026 defines as an Applicability Statement.  Should it
say so explicitly?

NTP in the Abstract could use a reference to its RFC.

The SHOULD in Section 5 is bare.  When might an implementer legitimately decide
to deviate from the advice given there?  Or maybe MUST is better?

The first SHOULD in Section 9 seems to me to be redundant to the MUST that
precedes it.

Is the SHOULD in Section 10 a restatement of the SHOULD in the last paragraph
of Section 6?