Subject: [Ntp] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 03:15:24 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model-15: Discuss

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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Special thanks for Dieter Sibold as the document shepherd write-up includes
text about the WG consensus.

Please find below one blocking DISCUSS point (but really trivial and easy to
address), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated),
and some nits.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

-- Section 13.1 --
As RFC 7317 is imported by the YANG module, it must be a normative reference.

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

Should the NTP version(s) be mentioned in the abstract ?

-- Section 1 --
The text appears to indicate that the associations can be configured while the
tree diagram indicateds tha associations are read-only. Should the associations
text moved to the section 1.1 (i.e., operational states) ?

-- Section 1.5 --
Using a table for listing references is unusual. Is there a reason why this
form is used ?

-- Section 8 --
Should there be more constraints on "ntp-version" ? I.e., a minimum of 3 ?