Skip to main content

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