Subject: [Ntp] Alexey Melnikov's Yes on draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 05:16:33 -0800

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-08: Yes

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-packet-timestamps/

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

Thank you for this document.

Francesca Palombini (see below) pointed out that this document would create
DownRef whenever it is referenced, so maybe this document should have been a PS.

**********************************************************************
* Note, that I am conducting an experiment when people aspiring to be*
* Area Directors get exposed to AD work ("AD shadowing experiment"). *
* As a part of this experiment they get to review documents on IESG  *
* telechats according to IESG Discuss criteria document and their    *
* comments get relayed pretty much verbatim to relevant editors/WGs. *
* As an AD I retain responsibility in defending their position when  *
* I agree with it.                                                   *
* Recipients of these reviews are encouraged to reply to me directly *
* about perceived successes or failures of this experiment.          *
**********************************************************************

The following comments were provided by Francesca Palombini
<[email-masked]>.

Francesca would have balloted *No Objections* on this document. She wrote:

Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
     it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with
     a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?

     RFC 8174, paragraph 11:
        The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
        "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
        and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
        described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
        appear in all capitals, as shown here.

     ... text found in draft:
        The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
        "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
        and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
        described in BCP 14 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when,
............................^
        and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

  Checking references for intended status: Informational
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------