Updating the NTP Registries
draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-16

[Ballot comment]
I am stealing this from Eric's review: "Thanks for this document, it seems that it was really required."; I'm glad that someone cares enough to do this, and even more glad that it's not me...

I support Paul's DISCUSS, and am assuming that it will be addressed - these seem like needed cleanup.

[Ballot comment]
I support Paul's DISCUSS.

From Section 2.1:

  Entries that start with 0x58, the ASCII letter uppercase X, are reserved for Private or Experimental Use.

This is continued in later sections.  We formally discontinued this practice in BCP 178, at least for header field names, media type registrations, and similar.  Do we need to preserve this for these registries or is it obsolete there too?

In Section 4.2:

  The existing entries are left unchanged. ## NTP Extension Field Types

I think this should've been a section break.

[Ballot comment]
The IANA review of this document seems to not have concluded yet.

DOWNREF [RFC5906] from this Proposed Standard to Informational RFC5906. (For
IESG discussion. It seems this DOWNREF was not mentioned in the Last Call and
also seems to not appear in the DOWNREF registry.)

DOWNREF [RFC7821] from this Proposed Standard to Experimental RFC7821. (For
IESG discussion. It seems this DOWNREF was not mentioned in the Last Call and
also seems to not appear in the DOWNREF registry.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 2.2, paragraph 4
> es registry. The following problems exists with the current registry: * Many
>                                    ^^^^^^
The verb form "exists" does not seem to match the subject "problems".

[Ballot comment]
# Orie Steele, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-13
CC @OR13

https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-13.txt&submitcheck=True

## Comments

I support Deb's DISCUSS, and Paul's DISCUSS.


```
158   *  Many of the entries in the Extension Field Types registry have
159       swapped some of the nibbles; 0x1234 is listed as 0x1432 for
160       example.  This was due to documentation errors with the original
161       implementation of Autokey.  This document marks the erroneous
162       values as reserved, in case there is an implementation that used
163       the registered values instead of what the original implementation
164       used.

166   *  Some values were mistakenly re-used.
```

^ this section could be improved by listing the entries that were swapped and their corrected values, and identifying the values that were mistakenly reused.

I agree with Paul's comment regarding "NTP Kiss-o'-Death Codes".

Perhaps something like "NTP Rate Limited Error Codes", with a note that these codes are historically referred to as "NTP Kiss-o'-Death Codes".

[Ballot discuss]
I support Deb's DISCUSS, and additionally wonder if the changes done here doesn't also require an Operational Considerations Section ?

Section 4.3 "fixes" the "nibble swapping" (which seems to me to be actual
"octet swapping"), and I am very concerned here. We have an IANA Registry
based on RFC 5905/5906 that now just seems to fix a dozen entries. We
are these not both mapped to these operations?

eg consider:

0x0203  Cookie Message Request  RFC 5906
0x0302  Reserved for historic reasons  This RFC

Why are these not both "Cookie Message Request" ?  How many clients are
using RFC 5905/5906 specified behaviour of swapped octets, which is to
this day what is in the IANA Registry?

Also, I don't see any Errata for 5905/5906 explaining this? If this is
not explained elsewhere, can it be explained in this document in context
and more detail?


Further items that seem like bugs in the text:

Section 2.1:

        The formal request to define the registries is in Section 16

But these two registries already exist ??
Also "section 16" is not a link.
Also also "section 16" does not exist ??
Also also also in Section 4.2 it states CHANGING the existing registry ??

Why not rename the Kiss-o'-Death registry to something normal, like
the Fatal Error Registry or something ? Now seems like a good time
to normalize this along with the other changes?

Section 2.2:

        [RFC5905], Section 7.5 defined the on-the-wire format of extension
        fields but did not create a registry for them.

Same here? I see a registry already exists and Section 4.3 claims to
CHANGE the existing registry.

[Ballot comment]
Section 4.3:

        IANA cannot assign them.

Does IANA really ever "assign" things themselves? I think the sentence
can be omitted.

[Ballot comment]
I support Deb Cooley's DISCUSS position.

** idnits reports the following:

-- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
    have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
    the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
    this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
    (See the Legal Provisions document at
    https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

Please update the boilerplate.

[Ballot comment]
The IANA review of this document seems to not have concluded yet.

Check whether Expert Review is an appropriate registration policy here.

DOWNREF [RFC5906] from this Proposed Standard to Informational RFC5906. (For
IESG discussion. It seems this DOWNREF was not mentioned in the Last Call and
also seems to not appear in the DOWNREF registry.)

DOWNREF [RFC7821] from this Proposed Standard to Experimental RFC7821. (For
IESG discussion. It seems this DOWNREF was not mentioned in the Last Call and
also seems to not appear in the DOWNREF registry.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 2.2, paragraph 4
> es registry. The following problems exists with the current registry: * Many
>                                    ^^^^^^
The verb form "exists" does not seem to match the subject "problems".

[Ballot comment]
There seemed to be a need to update the NTP registries. I trust that the AD and the WG discussed the updates accordingly and that the dust settled properly on any updated values or allocation procedures

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document, it seems that it was really required.

Some non-blocking COMMENTs though.

Outdated shepherd write-ups cannot be DISCUSSed during the ballot but the 2022 write-up would benefit from an update. How can `One person expressed strong opposition` and `There has been no controversy about particular points.` coexist in the write-up ? Later `The summarized list of conflicts shall be send to the responsible AD.` has this been done ?

Why having NTS in the abstract and in the introduction and later in section 2.1 writing `no changes to them are specified in this document.`

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-08. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

First, in the NTP Reference Identifier Codes registry on the Network Time Protocol (NTP) Parameters located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ntp-parameters/

The registration procedure is changed from First Come, First Served to Specification Required.

The Note for the registry is changed to read as follows:

Codes beginning with the character "-" are reserved for experimentation and development. IANA cannot assign them.

The columns are defined as follows (this text is not a part of the Note for the registry):

ID (required): a four-byte value padded on the right with zeros. Each value must be an ASCII uppercase letter or minus sign
Clock source (required): A brief text description of the ID
Reference (required): the publication defining the ID.

The existing entries in the registry are left unchanged.

Second, in the NTP Kiss-o'-Death Codes registry, also on the Network Time Protocol (NTP) Parameters located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ntp-parameters/

The registration procedure is changed from First Come, First Served to Specification Required.

The Note is changed to read as follows:

Codes beginning with the character "-" are reserved for experimentation and development. IANA cannot assign them.

The columns are defined as follows (this text is not a part of the Note for the registry):

ID (required): a four-byte value padded on the right with zeros. Each value must be an ASCII uppercase letter or minus sign.
Meaning source (required): A brief text description of the ID.
Reference (required): the publication defining the ID.

The existing entries in the registry are left unchanged.

Third, in the NTP Extension Field Types registry, also on the Network Time Protocol (NTP) Parameters located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ntp-parameters/

The registration procedure is changed from First Come, First Served to Specification Required.

The reference [RFC5906] will be added to the reference for the registry.

The following two, new Notes are added to the registry:

Field Types in the range 0xF000 through 0xFFFF, inclusive, are reserved for experimentation and development. IANA cannot assign them. Both NTS Cookie and Autokey Message Request have the same Field Type; in practice this is not a problem as the field semantics will be determined by other parts of the message.

The "Reserved for historic reasons" is for differences between the original documentation and implementation of Autokey and marks the erroneous values as reserved, in case there is an implementation that used the registered values instead of what the original implementation used.

The columns are defined as follows (this text is not a part of the Note for the registry):

Field Type (required): A two-byte value in hexadecimal.
Meaning (required): A brief text description of the field type.
Reference (required): the publication defining the field type.

The entire registry is to be replaced. The new registry will be as follows:

Field Type Meaning Reference
----------+---------------------------------------------------+---------------
0x0002 Reserved for historic reasons [ RFC-to-be ]
0x0102 Reserved for historic reasons [ RFC-to-be ]
0x0104 Unique Identifier RFC 8915, Section 5.3
0x0200 No-Operation Request RFC 5906
0x0201 Association Message Request RFC 5906
0x0202 Certificate Message Request RFC 5906
0x0203 Cookie Message Request RFC 5906
0x0204 NTS Cookie RFC 8915, Section 5.4
0x0204 Autokey Message Request RFC 5906
0x0205 Leapseconds Message Request RFC 5906
0x0206 Sign Message Request RFC 5906
0x0207 IFF Identity Message Request RFC 5906
0x0208 GQ Identity Message Request RFC 5906
0x0209 MV Identity Message Request RFC 5906
0x0302 Reserved for historic reasons [ RFC-to-be ]
0x0304 NTS Cookie Placeholder RFC 8915, Section 5.5
0x0402 Reserved for historic reasons [ RFC-to-be ]
0x0404 NTS Authenticator and Encrypted Extension Fields RFC 8915, Section 5.6
0x0502 Reserved for historic reasons [ RFC-to-be ]
0x0602 Reserved for historic reasons [ RFC-to-be ]
0x0702 Reserved for historic reasons [ RFC-to-be ]
0x2005 UDP Checksum Complete RFC 7821
0x8002 Reserved for historic reasons [ RFC-to-be ]
0x8102 Reserved for historic reasons [ RFC-to-be ]
0x8200 No-Operation Response RFC 5906
0x8201 Association Message Response RFC 5906
0x8202 Certificate Message Response RFC 5906
0x8203 Cookie Message Response RFC 5906
0x8204 Autokey Message Response RFC 5906
0x8205 Leapseconds Message Response RFC 5906
0x8206 Sign Message Response RFC 5906
0x8207 IFF Identity Message Response RFC 5906
0x8208 GQ Identity Message Response RFC 5906
0x8209 MV Identity Message Response RFC 5906
0x8302 Reserved for historic reasons [ RFC-to-be ]
0x8402 Reserved for historic reasons [ RFC-to-be ]
0x8502 Reserved for historic reasons [ RFC-to-be ]
0x8602 Reserved for historic reasons [ RFC-to-be ]
0x8702 Reserved for historic reasons [ RFC-to-be ]
0x8802 Reserved for historic reasons [ RFC-to-be ]
0xC002 Reserved for historic reasons [ RFC-to-be ]
0xC102 Reserved for historic reasons [ RFC-to-be ]
0xC200 No-Operation Error Response RFC 5906
0xC201 Association Message Error Response RFC 5906
0xC202 Certificate Message Error Response RFC 5906
0xC203 Cookie Message Error Response RFC 5906
0xC204 Autokey Message Error Response RFC 5906
0xC205 Leapseconds Message Error Response RFC 5906
0xC206 Sign Message Error Response RFC 5906
0xC207 IFF Identity Message Error Response RFC 5906
0xC208 GQ Identity Message Error Response RFC 5906
0xC209 MV Identity Message Error Response RFC 5906
0xC302 Reserved for historic reasons [ RFC-to-be ]
0xC402 Reserved for historic reasons [ RFC-to-be ]
0xC502 Reserved for historic reasons [ RFC-to-be ]
0xC602 Reserved for historic reasons [ RFC-to-be ]
0xC702 Reserved for historic reasons [ RFC-to-be ]
0xC802 Reserved for historic reasons [ RFC-to-be ]
0x0902 Reserved for historic reasons [ RFC-to-be ]
0x8902 Reserved for historic reasons [ RFC-to-be ]
0xC902 Reserved for historic reasons [ RFC-to-be ]

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-07-07):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries@ietf.org, dsibold.ietf@gmail.com, ek.ietf@gmail.com, ntp-chairs@ietf.org, ntp@ietf.org, odonoghue@isoc.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Updating the NTP Registries) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network Time Protocols WG (ntp) to
consider the following document: - 'Updating the NTP Registries'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-07-07. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The Network Time Protocol (NTP) and Network Time Security (NTS)
  documents define a number of assigned number registries, collectively
  called the NTP registries.  Some registries have wrong values, some
  registries do not follow current common practice, and some are just
  right.  For the sake of completeness, this document reviews all NTP
  and NTS registries, and makes updates where necessary.

  This document updates RFC 5905, RFC 5906, RFC 8573, RFC 7822, and RFC
  7821.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc5906: Network Time Protocol Version 4: Autokey Specification (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))
    rfc7821: UDP Checksum Complement in the Network Time Protocol (NTP) (Experimental - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))

# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-07
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

## Comments

### Abstract,S1

* s/reviews/reviews, and updates where necessary,/

  ...or something, because the document does more than just review the
  registries.

### S2.1

* The last paragraph about Extension Fields seems like it belongs at the
  head of S2.2 (it doesn't align with the title of S2.1, thought does align
  with all of S2.1 being about "things that came from 5905").

  Suggest: moving this paragraph to the start of S2.2 and replacing
  "did not create a registry for it" with "did not create a registry for the
  Extension Field Type field", or something to clarify the referent of "it".

### S3

* Just to clarify, specifically as applies to the registries in S4.1 and
  S4.2, that 4-octet codes beginning with "X" may now be handed out by IANA,
  at least in principle?

  If so, it might be good to explicitly acknowledge this and say that it's
  not expected to

### S3,S4+

* Since DEs are being asked for, we'll be asked to have a section outlining
  guidance to the DEs.

  Cribbing from some of the recommendations mentioned in RFC 8126, here's a
  stab at some text to get started:

  S3.1 Guidance to Designated Experts

  In all cases of review by the Designated Expert (DE) described here,
  the DE is expected to ascertain the existence of suitable
  documentation (a specification) as described in [RFC5226] and to
  verify that the document is permanently and publicly available.  The
  DE is also expected to check the clarity of purpose and use of the
  requested code points.  Last, the DE is expected to be familiar with this
  document, specifically the history documented here.  If reviewing a request
  to allocate a field value previously reserved for private or experimental
  use, but reallocated per this document, it is RECOMMENDED to seek the
  feedback of the NTP community via any of the regular working group
  participation mechanisms (specifically, but not limited to, inquiring on
  the mailing list).

  ... or something.

# 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/

# 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/

# 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/