# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents #
*Version of the template: 4 July 2022.*
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
The document has working groups consensus for publication. One person
expressed opposition. Others either have added supportive comments or
have been silent.
1. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
There has been no controversy about particular points.
1. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)
Nobody threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extrem discontent.
1. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents
of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either
in the document itself (as [RFC
7942](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7942/) recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
The authors have two PoC implementations: one in python the other in C.
In addition one ntpd project has setup a project to implement Khronos
in the NTPd code base.
1. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews
took place.
The document does not contain content that would benefit from
additional review of other IETF working groups or external
organizations.
1. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document does not need expert review from the MIB Doctor, YANG
Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
1. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation
tools](https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply
with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC
8342](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8342/)?
The document does not contain a YANG module.
1. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
The document does not contain section which are written in a formal
language.
1. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that
this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and
ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
The document is clearly written, complete und correctly designed.
Therefore, it is considered ready to be handed off the responsible AD.
1. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter](https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics). For
which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this
still need to happen in subsequent reviews?
The common issues as compiled in the list mentioned above are not
applicable to the document considered.
1. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
The intended status of this document is informational. The datatracker
reflects the correct intended RFC status.
1. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP
79](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/)? To the best of your knowledge,
have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes,
summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available
messages when applicable.
There are no IPR filings on this document. The document shepherd has
received confirmation from the authors that they are not aware of any
IPR around this document.
1. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is
greater than five, please provide a justification.
The document shepherd has received confirmation from the authors that
they are willing to be listed as authors of this document.
1. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool](https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/) is not enough; please review the
["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org](https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview)
(Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a
rewrite is underway.)
The idnits tool compiles following issues:
* Error: There are 2 instances of too long lines in the document, the
longest one being 4 characters in excess of 72. * Two warnings:
1. One instance of line with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs:
[0.pool.ntp.org](http://0.pool.ntp.org) and
[1.pool.ntp.org](http://1.pool.ntp.org). These are well-known FQDNs
which compiles large number of public available NTP-Servers. The use of
these FQDNs supports the purpose of this document. 2. The document does
not use RFC 2119 keywords. The document describes a client algorithm
that does not affect NTP servers or non-Khronos clients. The NTP
on-wire protocol is not changed and it does not intend to update RFC
5905. The intended status of the document is informational. For these
reasons the abstain from RFC 2119 keywords is appropriate.
1. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative
References](https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/).
The classification of the references is done correctly. There is no
need for change.
1. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references?
All normative references are freely available. The community did have
sufficient access to review these references.
1. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC
3967](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3967/) and [BCP
97](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97)) that are not already listed in the
[DOWNREF registry](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/)? If so, list them.
There are no normative downward references.
1. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If
so, what is the plan for their completion?
All normative references are completed.
1. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction?
If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
This document will not change the status of any existing RFC.
1. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each
newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations
procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC
8126](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8126/)).
The document does not define any request to IANA.
1. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please
include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
The document does not define any request to IANA.