This is the publication request and document shepherd write up for:
Control Messages Protocol for Use with Network Time Protocol Version 4
draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-07
Prepared by: Karen O’Donoghue, 21 May 2020
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Historic
This is a historic RFC to document a set of control messages that were left out
of the the update to RFC 1305, RFC 5905.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be
found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary:
This document describes the structure of the control messages that were
historically used with the Network Time Protocol before the advent of more
modern control and management approaches. These control messages have been
used to monitor and control the Network Time Protocol application running on
any IP network attached computer. The information in this document was
originally described in Appendix B of RFC 1305. The goal of this document is
to provide a current, but historic, description of the control messages as
described in RFC 1305 and any additional commands implemented in NTP.
The publication of this document is not meant to encourage the developement and
deployment of these control messages. This document is only providing a
current reference for these control messages given the current status of RFC
1305.
Working Group Summary:
The document has working group consensus for publication, and has been reviewed
by several WG participants since its initial adoption as a working group item.
Document Quality:
This document has been reviewed and revised several times during its
development. There were no specific external expert reviews conducted. It has
been stable for a long time and awaiting document shepherd writeup.
Personnel:
Karen O'Donoghue is acting as the Document Shepherd. Erik Kline is the
Responsible Area Director.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
The document shepherd has followed the working group process and reviewed the
final document and feels this document is ready for IESG review.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
The document shepherd does not have any concerns about the reviews that were
performed.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
This document does not require any special reviews beyond those planned during
the IESG review process.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
The Document Shepherd is comfortable with this document.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?
There are no IPR filings on this document. The document shepherd has requested
confirmation from all the authors that they are in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP78 and BCP79 with respect to IPR disclosures.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
There are no IPR disclosures for this document.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
The document represents strong WG consensus. It is an old and deployed
technology, and this is an effort to rectify an oversight in the development of
RFC 5905.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director.
There have been no threats of anyone appealing the documents.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
The document shepherd ran ID nits and found a few minor warnings that can be
fixed on the next iteration. They are related to the fact that the draft has
been waiting for the shepherd for so long.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
There are no formal review criteria for this document.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
All references are tagged as normative or informative.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references
exist, what is the plan for their completion?
All normative references are completed.
(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these
downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
There are no downward normative references.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and
discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and
Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
This document does not change the status of any existing RFCs. It does however
complete the obsoleting of RFC 1305.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
RFC 5226).
There are no IANA requests in this document.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
There are no new IANA registries requested in this document.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
There were no automated checks on formal language.