Updating the NTP Registries
draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-06
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2022-12-08
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Notification list changed to dsibold.ietf@gmail.com, odonoghue@isoc.org from dsibold.ietf@gmail.com odonoghue@isoc.org |
2022-11-02
|
06 | (System) | Changed action holders to Erik Kline (IESG state changed) |
2022-11-02
|
06 | Erik Kline | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2022-10-21
|
06 | Dieter Sibold | # Document Shepherd Writeup *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering … # Document Shepherd Writeup *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 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 group consensus. Four members of the WG agreed that it is ready to be advanced. One person expressed strong opposition. Others either have added supportive comments or have been silent. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There has been no controversy about particular points. 3. 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.) As indicated in the answer to question (1): During WGLC one person expressed opposition and announced to provide a complete response to the draft. The summarized list of conflicts shall be send to the responsible AD. 4. 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][3] recommends) or elsewhere The draft does not specify a protocol to implement. Instead, it reviews registry entries from NTP and NTS and updates registry entries with either wrong values or registries which do not follow current common practice. ### Additional Reviews 5. 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. This document does not closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations. It does not require any special reviews beyond those planned during the IESG review process. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]? The document does not contain a YANG module. 8. 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. Not applicable. ### Document Shepherd Checks 9. 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? This documents corrects some of NTP's IANA registry entries. Thence it is needed. It is clearly written, complete and correctly designed. Therefore, it is considered ready to be handed off the responsible AD. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? The common issues compiled in [6] are not applicable to the document considered. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? The draft updates registries defined by Standard Tracks document. Therefore, according to Sec. 2.4 of RFC 8126 the intended RFC status of this draft has to be Proposed Standard. The datatracker reflects the correct intended RFC status. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]? 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 author that he is not aware of any IPR around this document. 13. 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 author that he is willing to be listed as author of this document. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) The idnits tool (version 2.17.1) generates following nits: a.) (**) Lack of Security Considerations section (The document considers current IANA values exclusively) b.) (--) The document updates RFC 7821 but this is not mentioned in the abstract. (This is a wrong warning. The document's abstract clearly indicates that it updates RFC 7821.) c.) (--) The document does not contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work. (This warning is reported because it updates RFC 5905.) d.) (--) The document has two downref references. (See the answer to question 17) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. The classification of the references is done correctly. There is no need for change. 16. 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. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. The document contains tow downward references: 1. RFC 5906, Informational 2. RFC 7821, Experimental Both references are necessary in order to accomplish the purpose of this document. 18. 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. 19. 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 update a number of RFC. All affected RFC are listed in the metadata and abstract of the document correctly. Sec. 2 of the document discusses all affected RFC. 20. 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][11]). The purpose of this document is to review all NTP and NTS related registries and to modify those which are wrong or which do not follow the current common practice. The document fulfills this demand. The document does not introduce new registries. 21. 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 replaces existing registries with the same name. Each policy for each registry considered will be Specification Required. Each registry is specified clearly; instruction to the designated export is therefore clear. The documents ask the IESG to choose three Designated Experts for these registries and additionally requires that each change to a registry has to be approved by two experts. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2022-10-21
|
06 | Dieter Sibold | Responsible AD changed to Erik Kline |
2022-10-21
|
06 | Dieter Sibold | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2022-10-21
|
06 | Dieter Sibold | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2022-10-21
|
06 | Dieter Sibold | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2022-10-21
|
06 | Dieter Sibold | # Document Shepherd Writeup *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering … # Document Shepherd Writeup *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 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 group consensus. Four members of the WG agreed that it is ready to be advanced. One person expressed strong opposition. Others either have added supportive comments or have been silent. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There has been no controversy about particular points. 3. 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.) As indicated in the answer to question (1): During WGLC one person expressed opposition and announced to provide a complete response to the draft. The summarized list of conflicts shall be send to the responsible AD. 4. 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][3] recommends) or elsewhere The draft does not specify a protocol to implement. Instead, it reviews registry entries from NTP and NTS and updates registry entries with either wrong values or registries which do not follow current common practice. ### Additional Reviews 5. 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. This document does not closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations. It does not require any special reviews beyond those planned during the IESG review process. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]? The document does not contain a YANG module. 8. 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. Not applicable. ### Document Shepherd Checks 9. 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? This documents corrects some of NTP's IANA registry entries. Thence it is needed. It is clearly written, complete and correctly designed. Therefore, it is considered ready to be handed off the responsible AD. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? The common issues compiled in [6] are not applicable to the document considered. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? The draft updates registries defined by Standard Tracks document. Therefore, according to Sec. 2.4 of RFC 8126 the intended RFC status of this draft has to be Proposed Standard. The datatracker reflects the correct intended RFC status. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]? 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 author that he is not aware of any IPR around this document. 13. 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 author that he is willing to be listed as author of this document. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) The idnits tool (version 2.17.1) generates following nits: a.) (**) Lack of Security Considerations section (The document considers current IANA values exclusively) b.) (--) The document updates RFC 7821 but this is not mentioned in the abstract. (This is a wrong warning. The document's abstract clearly indicates that it updates RFC 7821.) c.) (--) The document does not contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work. (This warning is reported because it updates RFC 5905.) d.) (--) The document has two downref references. (See the answer to question 17) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. The classification of the references is done correctly. There is no need for change. 16. 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. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. The document contains tow downward references: 1. RFC 5906, Informational 2. RFC 7821, Experimental Both references are necessary in order to accomplish the purpose of this document. 18. 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. 19. 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 update a number of RFC. All affected RFC are listed in the metadata and abstract of the document correctly. Sec. 2 of the document discusses all affected RFC. 20. 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][11]). The purpose of this document is to review all NTP and NTS related registries and to modify those which are wrong or which do not follow the current common practice. The document fulfills this demand. The document does not introduce new registries. 21. 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 replaces existing registries with the same name. Each policy for each registry considered will be Specification Required. Each registry is specified clearly; instruction to the designated export is therefore clear. The documents ask the IESG to choose three Designated Experts for these registries and additionally requires that each change to a registry has to be approved by two experts. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2022-10-21
|
06 | Dieter Sibold | # Document Shepherd Writeup *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering … # Document Shepherd Writeup *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 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 group consensus. Four members of the WG agreed that it is ready to be advanced. One person expressed strong opposition. Others either have added supportive comments or have been silent. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There has been no controversy about particular points. 3. 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.) As indicated in the answer to question (1): During WGLC one person expressed opposition and announced to provide a complete response to the draft. However, despite the fact the WGLC was extend for several weeks, this person didn't provide the announced response. For that reason, it is not possible to summarize the areas of conflict. 4. 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][3] recommends) or elsewhere The draft does not specify a protocol to implement. Instead, it reviews registry entries from NTP and NTS and updates registry entries with either wrong values or registries which do not follow current common practice. ### Additional Reviews 5. 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. This document does not closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations. It does not require any special reviews beyond those planned during the IESG review process. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]? The document does not contain a YANG module. 8. 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. Not applicable. ### Document Shepherd Checks 9. 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? This documents corrects some of NTP's IANA registry entries. Thence it is needed. It is clearly written, complete and correctly designed. Therefore, it is considered ready to be handed off the responsible AD. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? The common issues compiled in [6] are not applicable to the document considered. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? The draft updates registries defined by Standard Tracks document. Therefore, according to Sec. 2.4 of RFC 8126 the intended RFC status of this draft has to be Proposed Standard. The datatracker reflects the correct intended RFC status. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]? 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 author that he is not aware of any IPR around this document. 13. 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 author that he is willing to be listed as author of this document. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) The idnits tool (version 2.17.1) generates following nits: a.) (**) Lack of Security Considerations section (The document considers current IANA values exclusively) b.) (--) The document updates RFC 7821 but this is not mentioned in the abstract. (This is a wrong warning. The document's abstract clearly indicates that it updates RFC 7821.) c.) (--) The document does not contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work. (This warning is reported because it updates RFC 5905.) d.) (--) The document has two downref references. (See the answer to question 17) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. The classification of the references is done correctly. There is no need for change. 16. 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. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. The document contains tow downward references: 1. RFC 5906, Informational 2. RFC 7821, Experimental Both references are necessary in order to accomplish the purpose of this document. 18. 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. 19. 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 update a number of RFC. All affected RFC are listed in the metadata and abstract of the document correctly. Sec. 2 of the document discusses all affected RFC. 20. 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][11]). The purpose of this document is to review all NTP and NTS related registries and to modify those which are wrong or which do not follow the current common practice. The document fulfills this demand. The document does not introduce new registries. 21. 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 replaces existing registries with the same name. Each policy for each registry considered will be Specification Required. Each registry is specified clearly; instruction to the designated export is therefore clear. The documents ask the IESG to choose three Designated Experts for these registries and additionally requires that each change to a registry has to be approved by two experts. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2022-10-18
|
06 | Karen O'Donoghue | Notification list changed to dsibold.ietf@gmail.com odonoghue@isoc.org from dsibold.ietf@gmail.com |
2022-08-17
|
06 | Rich Salz | New version available: draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-06.txt |
2022-08-17
|
06 | Rich Salz | New version approved |
2022-08-17
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Rich Salz |
2022-08-17
|
06 | Rich Salz | Uploaded new revision |
2022-07-29
|
05 | Dieter Sibold | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2022-07-29
|
05 | Dieter Sibold | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2022-07-25
|
05 | Karen O'Donoghue | Added to session: IETF-114: ntp Wed-1000 |
2022-07-24
|
05 | Rich Salz | New version available: draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-05.txt |
2022-07-24
|
05 | Rich Salz | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Rich Salz) |
2022-07-24
|
05 | Rich Salz | Uploaded new revision |
2022-07-19
|
04 | Karen O'Donoghue | Notification list changed to dsibold.ietf@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set |
2022-07-19
|
04 | Karen O'Donoghue | Document shepherd changed to Dieter Sibold |
2022-07-19
|
04 | Karen O'Donoghue | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2022-06-03
|
04 | Rich Salz | New version available: draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-04.txt |
2022-06-03
|
04 | Rich Salz | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Rich Salz) |
2022-06-03
|
04 | Rich Salz | Uploaded new revision |
2022-04-18
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-01-20
|
03 | Dieter Sibold | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2021-10-15
|
03 | Rich Salz | New version available: draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-03.txt |
2021-10-15
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-10-15
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Rich Salz |
2021-10-15
|
03 | Rich Salz | Uploaded new revision |
2021-09-24
|
02 | Rich Salz | New version available: draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-02.txt |
2021-09-24
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-09-24
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Rich Salz |
2021-09-24
|
02 | Rich Salz | Uploaded new revision |
2021-08-06
|
01 | Rich Salz | New version available: draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-01.txt |
2021-08-06
|
01 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Rich Salz) |
2021-08-06
|
01 | Rich Salz | Uploaded new revision |
2021-07-30
|
00 | Rich Salz | New version available: draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-00.txt |
2021-07-30
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2021-07-30
|
00 | Rich Salz | Set submitter to "Rich Salz ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: ntp-chairs@ietf.org |
2021-07-30
|
00 | Rich Salz | Uploaded new revision |