Enterprise Profile for the Precision Time Protocol With Mixed Multicast and Unicast messages
draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile-26

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile-24, 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.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-03-05):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile@ietf.org, ek.ietf@gmail.com, tictoc-chairs@ietf.org, tictoc@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Enterprise Profile for the Precision Time Protocol With Mixed Multicast and Unicast messages) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Timing over IP Connection and
Transfer of Clock WG (tictoc) to consider the following document: -
'Enterprise Profile for the Precision Time Protocol With Mixed
  Multicast and Unicast messages'
  as Proposed Standard

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 2024-03-05. 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


  This document describes a PTP Profile for the use of the Precision
  Time Protocol in an IPv4 or IPv6 Enterprise information system
  environment.  The PTP Profile uses the End-to-End delay measurement
  mechanism, allows both multicast and unicast Delay Request and Delay
  Response messages.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile/



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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

  The working group itself is very small.  That said, this document has
  working group consensus.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

  No.

3. 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. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

  Yes; from S4 of the document:

  Interoperability among independent implementations of this PTP Profile has
  been demonstrated at the ISPCS Plugfest.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

  This work touches on IEEE PTP work.  Co-ordination was called out in the
  working group charter, and several IEEE participants have participated in
  the drafting and review of this document.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  Not applicable.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

  Not applicable.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

  Not applicable.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

  Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

    None; none.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

    PS.  This document specifies an enterprise profile and uses requirements
    language for the purpose of implementation conformance evaluation.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

    No IPR claims; authors confirmed.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

    Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

    I-D nits complains about lack of 2119 but 8174 text is used.  Not sure
    what the issue is there.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

    No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    The document contains normative references to IEEE 1588 specifications.
    Group members had sufficient access to these (PTP specifications).

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

    No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

    No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

    No.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

    No IANA considerations.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

    None.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Internet AD comments for {draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile-22}
CC @ekline

## Comments

### S1

* "PTPv2.1 also includes PTP profiles..."

  I think thing may read better if this marks the start of a new paragraph.

### S2

* Please update to RFC 8174 (8174 S2).

### S3

* The use of the term "port" was pretty confusing until I got down to the
  description of "PTP port".

  This terminology seems sufficiently different from NTP, and multiple
  possible IETF meanings of "port", that it's probably worth adding a short
  explainer paragraph in Section 1 (maybe add on to the end).

* Does "NTP" refer specifically to NTPv4 (i.e. RFC 5905) or can it also
  refer to future versions of NTP (e.g., the v5 work currently underway)?

## Nits

### Abstract

* s/IPV4/IPv4/

### S3

* "configures table" -> "configured table"

* "Sync, announce and Delay Request" -> "Sync, Announce, and Delay Request"

### S6

* "Ipv6" -> "IPv6"

* s/man-in-the-middle attacks/on-path attacks/

### S9

* s/from the all/from all the/

### S10

* s/syntonize/synchronize/

### S18

* s/man-in-the-middle attacks/on-path attacks/

  It might also be fair to note that Transparent Clocks are a form of
  on-path manipulation, but one that aids in achieving the timing objectives.

* s/SHOULD not/SHOULD NOT/

Note: This document has reached working group consensus and passed WGLC. Minor issues raised during the WGLC will be incorporated by the document editors. Upon completion of this update, the document will be ready to send to the IESG.