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

From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 20:11:05 -0700

Barry Leiba 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.

To add to the discussion: It’s not clear to me why either a Historic or an
Informational RFC is needed, to repeat information that is in an Obsolete RFC. 
It would be one thing if these were for current implementation, but the draft
is clear that they’re not.  Then why isn’t it sufficient that they are
documented in 1305?  Why does there need to be a non-Obsolete RFC that has them?

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 08:37:09 -0400

Hey Barry,

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

Two reasons that were brought up within the WG...

1. This version includes some additional mode 6 commands that were
developed after the publication of RFC 1305. The WG felt there was a
need to document those new commands.

2. The changes to the Abstract and the Intro proposed to address Éric's
concerns should make it clear that there are uses for mode 6 WRT RFC
5905. The WG wanted a current reference built off of NTPv4 rather than
the obsolete version published with NTPv3.

Regards,
Brian