Telechat Review of draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-23

Request Review of draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 28)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2020-03-10
Requested 2020-03-03
Authors Daniel Franke, Dieter Sibold, Kristof Teichel, Marcus Dansarie, Ragnar Sundblad
Draft last updated 2020-03-09
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-23-genart-telechat-romascanu-2020-03-09
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 23 (document currently at 28)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2020-03-09


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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-23
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 2020-03-09
IETF LC End Date: 2020-02-28
IESG Telechat date: 2020-03-12



A very clear, well written, nicely organized document.

While reviewing version -22 of the document I had a minor non-blocking comment about marking unused entries in the tables in Sections 7.6, 7.7, 7.8 that may be used for future extensions as 'Reserved for Future Standard Use'.

An exchange of mails with the editors clarified that they are  following the recommendations at>, under "Lists Versus Tables”, which say:
> "For an example of an IANA Considerations section that uses tables, see RFC 6940. For an example that uses lists, see RFC 5804.”

While I still believe that explicit marking entries in the tables as 'Reserved for Future Standard Use' makes things more clear and avoids future problems, I can live with following the IANA recommendations above. This was a minor non-blocking issue anyway.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments: