Skip to main content

IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ntp-roughtime-15
review-ietf-ntp-roughtime-15-opsdir-lc-buraglio-2026-01-05-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ntp-roughtime
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2026-01-07
Requested 2025-12-18
Requested by Mohamed Boucadair
Authors Watson Ladd , Marcus Dansarie
I-D last updated 2026-03-05 (Latest revision 2026-02-21)
Completed reviews Secdir IETF Last Call review of -15 by Tirumaleswar Reddy.K (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -15 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -15 by Colin Perkins (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -15 by Nick Buraglio (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -15 by John R. Levine (diff)
Httpdir IETF Last Call review of -15 by Mark Nottingham (diff)
Artart Telechat review of -17 by John R. Levine
Assignment Reviewer Nick Buraglio
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-ntp-roughtime by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/SQzndPubADp2K3qoXgmL1yS63hM
Reviewed revision 15 (document currently at 17)
Result Has issues
Completed 2026-01-05
review-ietf-ntp-roughtime-15-opsdir-lc-buraglio-2026-01-05-00
Hi,

I have been selected as the Operational Directorate (opsdir) reviewer for this
Internet-Draft.

The Operational Directorate reviews all operational and management-related
Internet-Drafts to ensure alignment with operational best practices and that
adequate operational considerations are covered.

A complete set of _"Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management in
IETF Specifications"_ can be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis/.

While these comments are primarily for the Operations and Management Area
Directors (Ops ADs), the authors should consider them alongside other feedback
received.

- Document: draft-ietf-ntp-roughtime-15

- Reviewer: Nick Buraglio

- Review Date: 5-Jan-2026

- Intended Status: Experimental

---

## Summary

Choose one:

- Has Issues: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think
should be resolved before publication.

## General Operational Comments Alignment with RFC 5706bis

I found this document easy to read and straightforward. Operationally, I
believe there should be some additions regarding operation.

## Major Issues

> No major issues found.

 ---

## Minor Issues

There should be some text regarding Path MTU discovery, otherwise it will be
left to interpretation. There are also some fuzzy details about server failure
modes with regard to malphesense reporting, but that should probably be better
defined. Perhaps some further clarification outside of section 8.4 which
touches on some of the of failure modes and expected behaviors.

---