Subject: [Ntp] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-ntp-bcp-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 14:40:06 -0800

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ntp-bcp-10: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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

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

Thank you for writing this - I found it a helpful, interesting and pleasant
read.

I do have a few comments - these are just comments, feel free to ignore, etc.

Firstly, thanks for mentioning BCP-38 -- it feels like you are tilting at
windmills here, but I appreciate your optimism :-)

'NTF' should be expanded on first use.

I don't have any test to suggest, but "For several hours before and after the
June 2015 leap second, several operators implemented leap smearing while others
did not, ..." sounds like, in June 2015 a whole bunch of operators sat down at
their workstations and wrote code to implement leap smearing (the word 
"implemented" makes this less than clear). Perhaps "performed leap smearing"
would be clearer?

Section 4.1.  Pre-Shared Key Approach
"The MD5 hash is now considered to be too weak." -- too weak for what? (I
agree, but you seem to be missing words).

Much of the test of the document seems to be "motherhood and apple pie" type
advice (e.g: "Users should keep up to date on any known attacks on their
selected implementation, and deploy updates containing security fixes as soon
as practical."), but this is a BCP, this doesn't seem unreasonable :-)