Guidelines for Defining Packet Timestamps
draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-09

I discussed this document with the authors and the chairs, and we felt that it would be useful to get a bit more real world usage and review before it becomes a BCP.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for this document.

Francesca Palombini (see below) pointed out that this document would create DownRef whenever it is referenced, so maybe this document should have been a PS.

**********************************************************************
* Note, that I am conducting an experiment when people aspiring to be*
* Area Directors get exposed to AD work ("AD shadowing experiment"). *
* As a part of this experiment they get to review documents on IESG  *
* telechats according to IESG Discuss criteria document and their    *
* comments get relayed pretty much verbatim to relevant editors/WGs. *
* As an AD I retain responsibility in defending their position when  *
* I agree with it.                                                  *
* Recipients of these reviews are encouraged to reply to me directly *
* about perceived successes or failures of this experiment.          *
**********************************************************************

The following comments were provided by Francesca Palombini .

Francesca would have balloted *No Objections* on this document. She wrote:

Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
    it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with
    a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?

    RFC 8174, paragraph 11:
        The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
        "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
        and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
        described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
        appear in all capitals, as shown here.   

    ... text found in draft:
        The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
        "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
        and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
        described in BCP 14 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when,
............................^
        and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

  Checking references for intended status: Informational
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Ballot comment]
Could this go for BCP instead of Informational?  (That would avoid a
need in the future to get it added to the downref registry.)

When we discuss the NTP timestamp formats, we say that "during and
possibly after the occurrence of a leap second, the value of the
timestamp may temporarily be ambiguous, as further discussed in Section
5."  But in Section 5 we discuss the possibility of behavior where
"[t]he clock is slowed down during the leap second and adjacent time
intervals until the new time value catches up."  These statements seem
incompatible unless "adjacent time intervals" occur only after the leap
second, which is not my understanding of how leap-second smearing is
performed in practice.

Section 1.1

  Timestamps are widely used in network protocols for various purposes:
  timestamps are used for logging or reporting the time of an event,
  delay measurement and clock synchronization protocols both make use
  of timestamped messages, and in security protocols a timestamp is
  often used as a value that is unlikely to repeat (nonce).

Some security protocols also use timestamps directly for security
functionality, e.g., using a replay cache for messages within a certain
time window of the past and discarding older ones.  That usage is mostly
unrelated to what is discussed in this document, and I don't really see
a need to mention it in the document, but will mention it here in case
opinions differ.

Section 3

When multiple fields are used (with different units), what needs to be
said about how the two fields are combined and/or any restrctions on the
allowed range of the fields?  (E.g., for the "joke" timestamp format
that has a seconds plus centiseconds representation, are values greater
than or equal to 100 centiseconds forbidden?  Do we envision
applications other than "convert values to a common unit and add them"
for multiple fields, such as explicit fields to convey timestamp
accuracy and/or precision?)

Section 4

  This document defines a set of recommended timestamp formats.
  Defining a relatively small set of recommended formats enables
  significant reuse; for example, a network protocol may reuse the NTP
  or PTP timestamp format, allowing a straightforward integration with
  an NTP or a PTP-based timer.  Moreover, since accurate timestamping
  mechanisms are often implemented in hardware, a new network protocol
  that reuses an existing timestamp format can be quickly deployed
  using existing hardware timestamping capabilities.

This text feels very familiar by this point in the document...

Section 4.2.1

Just to check: we assume by definition that no leap seconds occurred
prior to the creation of UTC when we say that 2272060800 is the number
of seconds between 1 Jan 1900 and 1 Jan 1972, right?

Section 7

I assume the WG considered whether this content could be spun off into a
separate document, e.g., one that defines specific timestamp control
fields, but decided that it is important enough to publish now.

Section 9

Is it in scope to discuss considerations relating to applications that
have an inaccurate sense of the current time, or network packets that
contain timestamps intended to be synchronized to a reference but in
fact are not?  (I see a decent argument that it is not in scope, but
want to check.)

Section 11.2

I assume the self-reference will get removed by the RFC Editor.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this well-written document. Was it discussed to publish this document as BCP?

Please also see the TSV-ART review comments (Thanks Ian for the review!)!

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document. It is indeed useful to have common timestamp formats.

I was about to ballot a DISCUSS on the point in section 1.1 but I am trusting the Security Area Directors for their own reviews.

Nevertheless, please find below some non-blocking COMMENTs (and I would appreciate a response from the authors).

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 1.1 --
When writing "security protocols a timestamp is often used as a value that is unlikely to repeat (nonce)", I sincerely believes that this is probably misleading as nonce should probably have entropy and be non-predictable. A timestamp does not have those properties. Again, I am trusting my SEC AD peers on their final words.

-- Section 2.1 --
Is BCP 14 boilerplate required for an informational document ? I have found only one "MUST" in the security section but again this is weird for an informational document.

-- Section 3 --
Should the syntax also include the bit ordering ? I.e., little endian of big endian ? Of course the default if network order but what if it is not ?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-07, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-02-20):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ntp@ietf.org, odonoghue@isoc.org, Karen O'Donoghue , ntp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps@ietf.org, suresh@kaloom.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Guidelines for Defining Packet Timestamps) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Network Time Protocol WG (ntp) to
consider the following document: - 'Guidelines for Defining Packet Timestamps'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-02-20. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  Various network protocols make use of binary-encoded timestamps that
  are incorporated in the protocol packet format, referred to as packet
  timestamps for short.  This document specifies guidelines for
  defining packet timestamp formats in networking protocols at various
  layers.  It also presents three recommended timestamp formats.  The
  target audience of this memo includes network protocol designers.  It
  is expected that a new network protocol that requires a packet
  timestamp will, in most cases, use one of the recommended timestamp
  formats.  If none of the recommended formats fits the protocol
  requirements, the new protocol specification should specify the
  format of the packet timestamp according to the guidelines in this
  document.

  The rationale behind defining a relatively small set of recommended
  formats is that it enables significant reuse; network protocols can
  typically reuse the timestamp format of the Network Time Protocol
  (NTP) or the Precision Time Protocol (PTP), allowing a
  straightforward integration with an NTP or a PTP-based timer.
  Moreover, since accurate timestamping mechanisms are often
  implemented in hardware, a new network protocol that reuses an
  existing timestamp format can be quickly deployed using existing
  hardware timestamping capabilities.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

This is the publication request and document shepherd write up for:

Guidelines for Defining Packet Timestamps
draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps/

Prepared by: Karen O’Donoghue, 29 October 2019 

(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?

Informational


(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:

Various network protocols make use of binary-encoded timestamps that are incorporated in the protocol packet format, referred to as packet timestamps for short.  This document specifies guidelines for defining packet timestamp formats in networking protocols at various layers.  It also presents three recommended timestamp formats.  The target audience of this memo includes network protocol designers.  It is expected that a new network protocol that requires a packet timestamp will, in most cases, use one of the recommended timestamp formats.  If none of the recommended formats fits the protocol    requirements, the new protocol specification should specify the format of the packet timestamp according to the guidelines in this document.

The rationale behind defining a relatively small set of recommended formats is that it enables significant reuse; network protocols can typically reuse the timestamp format of the Network Time Protocol (NTP) or the Precision Time Protocol (PTP), allowing a straightforward integration with an NTP or a PTP-based timer. Moreover, since accurate timestamping mechanisms are often implemented in hardware, a new network protocol that reuses an existing timestamp format can be quickly deployed using existing hardware timestamping capabilities.

Working Group Summary:

The document has clear 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.
 
Personnel: 

Karen O'Donoghue is acting as the Document Shepherd.  Suresh Krishnan 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 is 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.
 
(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.

There are currently two warnings about outdated references to IDs that will be fixed during the IESG review and publication process.

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of
    draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-11

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of
    draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-06

(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 downrefs.

(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.
 
(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 new IANA considerations contained 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 considerations contained 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.

This is the publication request and document shepherd write up for:

Guidelines for Defining Packet Timestamps
draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps/

Prepared by: Karen O’Donoghue, 29 October 2019 

(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?

Informational


(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:

Various network protocols make use of binary-encoded timestamps that are incorporated in the protocol packet format, referred to as packet timestamps for short.  This document specifies guidelines for defining packet timestamp formats in networking protocols at various layers.  It also presents three recommended timestamp formats.  The target audience of this memo includes network protocol designers.  It is expected that a new network protocol that requires a packet timestamp will, in most cases, use one of the recommended timestamp formats.  If none of the recommended formats fits the protocol    requirements, the new protocol specification should specify the format of the packet timestamp according to the guidelines in this document.

The rationale behind defining a relatively small set of recommended formats is that it enables significant reuse; network protocols can typically reuse the timestamp format of the Network Time Protocol (NTP) or the Precision Time Protocol (PTP), allowing a straightforward integration with an NTP or a PTP-based timer. Moreover, since accurate timestamping mechanisms are often implemented in hardware, a new network protocol that reuses an existing timestamp format can be quickly deployed using existing hardware timestamping capabilities.

Working Group Summary:

The document has clear 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.
 
Personnel: 

Karen O'Donoghue is acting as the Document Shepherd.  Suresh Krishnan 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?

All authors have confirmed that they are in full conformance with the provisions of BCP78 and BCP79 with respect to IPR disclosures (of which there are none).
 
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

There is 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.
 
(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.

There are currently two warnings about outdated references to IDs that will be fixed during the IESG review and publication process.

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of
    draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-11

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of
    draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-06

(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 downrefs.

(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.
 
(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 new IANA considerations contained 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 considerations contained 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.

This is the publication request and document shepherd write up for:

Guidelines for Defining Packet Timestamps
draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps/

Prepared by: Karen O’Donoghue, 29 October 2019 

(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?

Informational


(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:

Various network protocols make use of binary-encoded timestamps that are incorporated in the protocol packet format, referred to as packet timestamps for short.  This document specifies guidelines for defining packet timestamp formats in networking protocols at various layers.  It also presents three recommended timestamp formats.  The target audience of this memo includes network protocol designers.  It is expected that a new network protocol that requires a packet timestamp will, in most cases, use one of the recommended timestamp formats.  If none of the recommended formats fits the protocol    requirements, the new protocol specification should specify the format of the packet timestamp according to the guidelines in this document.

The rationale behind defining a relatively small set of recommended formats is that it enables significant reuse; network protocols can typically reuse the timestamp format of the Network Time Protocol (NTP) or the Precision Time Protocol (PTP), allowing a straightforward integration with an NTP or a PTP-based timer. Moreover, since accurate timestamping mechanisms are often implemented in hardware, a new network protocol that reuses an existing timestamp format can be quickly deployed using existing hardware timestamping capabilities.

Working Group Summary:

The document has clear 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.
 
Personnel: 

Karen O'Donoghue is acting as the Document Shepherd.  Suresh Krishnan 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?

All authors have confirmed that they are in full conformance with the provisions of BCP78 and BCP79 with respect to IPR disclosures (of which there are none).
 
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

There is 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.
 
(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.

There are currently two warnings about outdated references to IDs that will be fixed during the IESG review and publication process.

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of
    draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-11

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of
    draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-06

(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 downrefs.

(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.
 
(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 new IANA considerations contained 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 considerations contained 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.

This is the publication request and document shepherd write up for:

Guidelines for Defining Packet Timestamps
draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps/

Prepared by: Karen OÕDonoghue, 29 October 2019 

(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?

Informational


(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:

Various network protocols make use of binary-encoded timestamps that are incorporated in the protocol packet format, referred to as packet timestamps for short.  This document specifies guidelines for defining packet timestamp formats in networking protocols at various layers.  It also presents three recommended timestamp formats.  The target audience of this memo includes network protocol designers.  It is expected that a new network protocol that requires a packet timestamp will, in most cases, use one of the recommended timestamp formats.  If none of the recommended formats fits the protocol    requirements, the new protocol specification should specify the format of the packet timestamp according to the guidelines in this document.

The rationale behind defining a relatively small set of recommended formats is that it enables significant reuse; network protocols can typically reuse the timestamp format of the Network Time Protocol (NTP) or the Precision Time Protocol (PTP), allowing a straightforward integration with an NTP or a PTP-based timer. Moreover, since accurate timestamping mechanisms are often implemented in hardware, a new network protocol that reuses an existing timestamp format can be quickly deployed using existing hardware timestamping capabilities.

Working Group Summary:

The document has clear working group consensus for publication, and has been reviewed by several WG participants since its initial adoption as a working group item.

Document Quality:
Ê
This document has been reviewed and revised several times during its development. There were no specific external expert reviews conducted.
Ê
Personnel:Ê

Karen O'Donoghue is acting as the Document Shepherd.Ê Suresh Krishnan 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.
Ê
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?
Ê
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.
Ê
(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.
Ê
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?

All authors have confirmed that they are in full conformance with the provisions of BCP78 and BCP79 with respect to IPR disclosures (of which there are none).
Ê
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

There is no IPR disclosures for this document.
Ê
(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.
Ê
(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.
Ê
(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.

There are currently two warnings about outdated references to IDs that will be fixed during the IESG review and publication process.

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of
    draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-11

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of
    draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-06

(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.
Ê
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

All references are tagged as normative or informative.
Ê
(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.
Ê
(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 downrefs.

(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.
Ê
(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 new IANA considerations contained 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 considerations contained in this document.
Ê
(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.

This is the publication request and document shepherd write up for:

Guidelines for Defining Packet Timestamps
draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps/

Prepared by: Karen OÕDonoghue, 29 October 2019 

(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?

Informational


(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:

Various network protocols make use of binary-encoded timestamps that are incorporated in the protocol packet format, referred to as packet timestamps for short.  This document specifies guidelines for defining packet timestamp formats in networking protocols at various layers.  It also presents three recommended timestamp formats.  The target audience of this memo includes network protocol designers.  It is expected that a new network protocol that requires a packet timestamp will, in most cases, use one of the recommended timestamp formats.  If none of the recommended formats fits the protocol    requirements, the new protocol specification should specify the format of the packet timestamp according to the guidelines in this document.

The rationale behind defining a relatively small set of recommended formats is that it enables significant reuse; network protocols can typically reuse the timestamp format of the Network Time Protocol (NTP) or the Precision Time Protocol (PTP), allowing a straightforward integration with an NTP or a PTP-based timer. Moreover, since accurate timestamping mechanisms are often implemented in hardware, a new network protocol that reuses an existing timestamp format can be quickly deployed using existing hardware timestamping capabilities.

Working Group Summary:

The document has clear working group consensus for publication, and has been reviewed by several WG participants since its initial adoption as a working group item.

Document Quality:
Ê
This document has been reviewed and revised several times during its development. There were no specific external expert reviews conducted.
Ê
Personnel:Ê

Karen O'Donoghue is acting as the Document Shepherd.Ê Suresh Krishnan 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.
Ê
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?
Ê
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.
Ê
(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.
Ê
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?

All authors have confirmed that they are in full conformance with the provisions of BCP78 and BCP79 with respect to IPR disclosures (of which there are none).
Ê
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

There is no IPR disclosures for this document.
Ê
(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.
Ê
(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.
Ê
(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.

There are currently two warnings about outdated references to IDs that will be fixed during the IESG review and publication process.

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of
    draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-11

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of
    draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-06

(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.
Ê
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

All references are tagged as normative or informative.
Ê
(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.
Ê
(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 downrefs.

(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.
Ê
(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 new IANA considerations contained 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 considerations contained in this document.
Ê
(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.

This is the publication request and document shepherd write up for:

Guidelines for Defining Packet Timestamps
draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps/

Prepared by: Karen OÕDonoghue, 29 October 2019 

(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?

Informational


(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:

Various network protocols make use of binary-encoded timestamps that are incorporated in the protocol packet format, referred to as packet timestamps for short.  This document specifies guidelines for defining packet timestamp formats in networking protocols at various layers.  It also presents three recommended timestamp formats.  The target audience of this memo includes network protocol designers.  It is expected that a new network protocol that requires a packet timestamp will, in most cases, use one of the recommended timestamp formats.  If none of the recommended formats fits the protocol    requirements, the new protocol specification should specify the format of the packet timestamp according to the guidelines in this document.

The rationale behind defining a relatively small set of recommended formats is that it enables significant reuse; network protocols can typically reuse the timestamp format of the Network Time Protocol (NTP) or the Precision Time Protocol (PTP), allowing a straightforward integration with an NTP or a PTP-based timer. Moreover, since accurate timestamping mechanisms are often implemented in hardware, a new network protocol that reuses an existing timestamp format can be quickly deployed using existing hardware timestamping capabilities.

Working Group Summary:

The document has clear working group consensus for publication, and has been reviewed by several WG participants since its initial adoption as a working group item.

Document Quality:
Ê
This document has been reviewed and revised several times during its development. There were no specific external expert reviews conducted.
Ê
Personnel:Ê

Karen O'Donoghue is acting as the Document Shepherd.Ê Suresh Krishnan 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.
Ê
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?
Ê
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.
Ê
(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.
Ê
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?

All authors have confirmed that they are in full conformance with the provisions of BCP78 and BCP79 with respect to IPR disclosures (of which there are none).
Ê
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

There is no IPR disclosures for this document.
Ê
(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.
Ê
(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.
Ê
(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.

There are currently two warnings about outdated references to IDs that will be fixed during the IESG review and publication process.

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of
    draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-11

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of
    draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-06

(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.
Ê
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

All references are tagged as normative or informative.
Ê
(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.
Ê
(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 downrefs.

(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.
Ê
(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 new IANA considerations contained 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 considerations contained in this document.
Ê
(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.