Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-22

Request Review of draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 28)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2020-02-28
Requested 2020-02-14
Authors Daniel Franke, Dieter Sibold, Kristof Teichel, Marcus Dansarie, Ragnar Sundblad
Draft last updated 2020-02-26
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -22 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -23 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -23 by Sandra Murphy (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Romascanu 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-22-genart-lc-romascanu-2020-02-26
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 22 (document currently at 28)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2020-02-26


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


Document: draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-22
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 2020-02-26
IETF LC End Date: 2020-02-28
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat


Ready with one minor issue to be discussed. 

A very clear, well written, nicely organized document. 

Major issues:

Minor issues:

1. The tables in Sections 7.6, 7.7, 7.8 state that all undefined values in the registries start immediately after the values defined by this document with 'Reserved for Private and Experimental Use'. What about future extensions in future versions of the document? Would not it be better to leave a range for future extensions and start the values for private and experimental use farther in the total spaces? 

Nits/editorial comments:

1. In the (very useful) Appendix A for Terms and Abbreviations, there are a few abbreviations usually considered part of the shared basis terms in IETF documents (like TCP, UDP, IANA, ...)