# 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/