Updating the NTP Registries
draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-13

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, 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, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Updating the NTP Registries' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-08.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Updating the NTP Registries'
  (draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-08.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Network Time Protocols Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Erik Kline and Éric Vyncke.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   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.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
   merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
   e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
   conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
   there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
   what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
   Review, on what date was the request posted?

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Dieter Sibold. The
   Responsible Area Director is Erik Kline.

IESG Note

  (Insert IESG Note here or remove section)

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

RFC Editor Note