Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ntp-bcp-07
review-ietf-ntp-bcp-07-genart-lc-sparks-2018-10-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ntp-bcp
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-10-08
Requested 2018-09-24
Draft last updated 2018-10-03
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Scott Kelly (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -10 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ntp-bcp-07-genart-lc-sparks-2018-10-03
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 13)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2018-10-03

Review
review-ietf-ntp-bcp-07-genart-lc-sparks-2018-10-03

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-ntp-bcp-07
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2018-10-03
IETF LC End Date: 2018-10-08
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready for publication as a BCP

I don't want to start another "What is a BCP" fight, but I think this document would serve the purpose it wants to serve just as well if it were Informational. I don't object to proceeding as BCP though.

I found the tone a little unusual (as other reviewers have commented on) as did one of the people who operates large systems but doesn't regularly participate in the IETF that I asked to skim this. That said, I didn't find it's lack of precision in places to be dangerous. If there's appetite to improve it, please do, but I think the world would be better with this document published as is than with no document published at all.