Subject: [Ntp] John Scudder's No Objection on charter-ietf-ntp-03-00: (with COMMENT)

From: John Scudder via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 07:00:29 -0700

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-ntp-03-00: 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.)

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

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

Basically fine. Some nits and suggestions below, take ‘em or leave ‘em.

1. Regarding Éric’s comment about “most widely used”, another option would be
to change it to say “it is a widely-used time synchronization protocol”, which
I think is indisputable and still gets the job done.

2. I agree with Ben that the references to “quality time” in the first ¶ is a
bit jarringly un-idiomatic. The rest of the ¶ implies that what’s meant is that
time synchronization must be “reliable” and “accurate”.

3. Is the “shall” in the ¶ about NTPv5 actually intended to be read as an
insistent directive to the WG (as one might express it if the writer were
unsure if the WG would actually do the work, and therefore wanted to demand
that they have to)? Or is it just used as a synonym for the “will” that appears
elsewhere? I’d stick with “will” unless the intention really is to communicate
insistence. (Compare to the way we use RFC 2119 “SHALL”, for example — would
this ¶ scan well if “shall” were replaced with “must”?)

4. s/Finally, the working group, will address/Finally, the working group will
address/ (lose the second comma)