Telechat Review of draft-ietf-ntp-bcp-10

Request Review of draft-ietf-ntp-bcp
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-12-18
Requested 2018-12-13
Authors Denis Reilly, Harlan Stenn, Dieter Sibold
Draft last updated 2018-12-13
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Scott Kelly (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -10 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ntp-bcp-10-genart-telechat-sparks-2018-12-13
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 13)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2018-12-13


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-bcp-10
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2018-12-13
IETF LC End Date: 2018-10-08
IESG Telechat date: 2018-12-20

Summary: Ready (but with nits that should be considered) for publication as a BCP RFC

Nits/editorial comments: 

With a couple of exceptions, the changes between -07 and -10 are very helpful - the document reads much more naturally.

One of the changes was to be more specific with actors - many uses of "you" or "your" were replaced with "the operator" for example. But this wasn't done throughout the document ("you" and "your" still appear frequently), and in at least one place the change caused a sentence to stop making sense: "If the time on your network has to be correct close to 100% of the time, then even if you are using a satellite-based system, operators need to plan for those rare instances when the system is unavailable (or wrong!)."

I strongly encourage yet another pass focusing on removing "you" and "your" to the extent possible.

The changes also included using 2119 keywords much more often. Unfortunately many of the new uses are not appropriate. "Vendors MUST" and several instances of "It is RECOMMENDED" are particularly jarring.
Moving 2119 to be an Informational reference is also incorrect if you are going to use those terms in this document.