Subject: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-22

From: Dan Romascanu via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 02:06:08 -0800

Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review result: Ready with Issues

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-22
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 2020-02-26
IETF LC End Date: 2020-02-28
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

Ready with one minor issue to be discussed.

A very clear, well written, nicely organized document.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

1. The tables in Sections 7.6, 7.7, 7.8 state that all undefined values in the
registries start immediately after the values defined by this document with
'Reserved for Private and Experimental Use'. What about future extensions in
future versions of the document? Would not it be better to leave a range for
future extensions and start the values for private and experimental use farther
in the total spaces?

Nits/editorial comments:

1. In the (very useful) Appendix A for Terms and Abbreviations, there are a few
abbreviations usually considered part of the shared basis terms in IETF
documents (like TCP, UDP, IANA, ...)

---

From: Ragnar Sundblad <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:56:10 +0100

Hi Dan,

Thank you for reviewing!

> future extensions and start the values for private and experimental use farther

We are not sure what you mean - we believe that the tables say that the upper halves of the spaces are 'Reserved for Private and Experimental Use’, while the lower halves are unallocated except for those values that are specified in the draft.

Do you have an example of how you would want it to be written/formatted instead?

> documents (like TCP, UDP, IANA, ...)

Ok - Marcus is doing that right now.

Best regards,

Ragnar

---

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 22:31:52 +0200

Thanks Ragnar, for the quick answer.

See in-line.

Regards,

Dan

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 6:56 PM Ragnar Sundblad <[email-masked]> wrote:

> We are not sure what you mean - we believe that the tables say that the
> upper halves of the spaces are 'Reserved for Private and Experimental Use’,
> while the lower halves are unallocated except for those values that are
> specified in the draft.
>

> Do you have an example of how you would want it to be written/formatted

It would be more clear if you added in the table in Section 7.6 for
example:

8 - 16383 - Reserved for Future Standard Use

---

From: Ragnar Sundblad <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 01:24:35 +0100

Hi Dan,

> On 27 Feb 2020, at 21:31, Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> It would be more clear if you added in the table in Section 7.6 for example: 
> 

That information is in the "policy for allocation allocation of new entries" in a table (without frames) above the table for "the initial contents of the table" (with frames). I believe there was some reason for this, but I don’t know what it was.

I guess we have to investigate this ASAP.

---

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 09:44:54 +0200

Ok, thanks.

Regards,

Dan

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 2:24 AM Ragnar Sundblad <[email-masked]> wrote:

> That information is in the "policy for allocation allocation of new
> entries" in a table (without frames) above the table for "the initial
> contents of the table" (with frames). I believe there was some reason for
> this, but I don’t know what it was.
>

---

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 23:23:40 +0200

Hi,

I had some more off-line conversations with Ragnar.

He pointed me to the following:

> I think I found why they are formated as they are:
> It is according to IANA recommendations (almost at least), and we use
“lists” for the "policy lists” and “tables” for registry contents.

> At <https://www.iana.org/help/protocol-registration>, under "Lists Versus
Tables”, they say:
> "For an example of an IANA Considerations section that uses tables, see
RFC 6940. For an example that uses lists, see RFC 5804.”

While I still believe that explicit marking entries in the tables as
'Reserved for Future Standard Use' makes things more clear and avoids
future problems, I can live with following the IANA recommendations above.
This was a minor non-blocking issue anyway.

Thanks for addressing this quickly.

Regards,

Dan