Subject: Re: [Ntp] IANA request language

From: Hal Murray <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:26:12 -0800

[email-masked] said:
> No objections here either, other than that it probably should have a "remove
> before publication" note.

It's not clear to me what that "it" binds to - the proposed new text or the 
whole section.

I think the whole IANA Considerations section should get removed.

The next section has a clear indication:
  Implementation Status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION

-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.

---

From: Watson Ladd <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:31:06 -0800

>   Implementation Status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION

IANA Considerations are generally not removed from published RFCs to
the best of my knowledge.

---

From: Marcus Dansarie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 20:32:43 +0100

> It's not clear to me what that "it" binds to - the proposed new text or the 

The proposed new text.

> I think the whole IANA Considerations section should get removed.

The IANA Considerations section will be updated before publication to
reflect the actual allocated entries and established registries. RFC
8126 contains information on how this is done.

Kind regards,
Marcus

---

From: Daniel Franke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 14:33:08 -0500

Before publication the RFC editor will change the IANA Considerations
section to reflect what was actually done rather than what we're
asking be done. This is standard procedure and we don't need to
include any special language requesting this.

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 2:31 PM Watson Ladd
<watson=[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp