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

From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 17:06:52 -0700

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-09: 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-mode-6-cmds/

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

I support Murray’s DISCUSS.

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.

Sec 4 references Fig. 2 but I think you mean Fig. 1.

In sec 6, please replace “whitelist” with “allowlist” or other equivalent term.

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 08:39:50 -0400

Hi Martin,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds/

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.

> In sec 6, please replace “whitelist” with “allowlist” or other equivalent term.

Will incorporate the above in a new version once all comments are received.

Regards,
Brian