Subject: [Ntp] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model-16: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 06:08:13 -0800

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model-16: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle 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/

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

Thank you for the work put into this document. With the update of the normative
references, I have cleared my blocking DISCUSS (kept it in the notes for
archival only).

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

== previous DISCUSS (kept only for archive)

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

== COMMENTS ==

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 ?