Rich,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] May we update this text for clarity? Note that it appears
in the Abstract and the Introduction.
Original:
Some registries have wrong values, some registries do not follow
current common practice, and some are just right. For the sake of
completeness, this document reviews all NTP and NTS registries, and
makes updates where necessary.
Perhaps:
Some registries are correct, but some include incorrect assignments
and some don’t follow common practice. For the sake of completeness,
this document reviews all NTP and NTS registries, and corrects the
registries where necessary.
-->
2) <!-- [rfced] To better align with the text in section 2 and for clarity,
may we update the text as follows?
Original:
The bulk of this document can be divided into two parts:
* First, each registry, its defining document, and a summary of its
syntax is defined.
* Second, the revised format and entries for each registry that is
being modified is specified.
Perhaps:
The bulk of this document can be divided into two parts:
* a summary of the relevant registries, including syntax requirements,
registration procedures, and the defining documents.
* a revised format and entries for each registry
being modified.
-->
3) <!-- [rfced] As we believe "these" refers to the code points (not the
registries), may we update the text as described below? Also, are the
codes 4 ASCII characters or are they allowed to be up to 4 ASCII
characters?
Original:
Both of these are allowed to
be four ASCII characters; padded on the right with all-bits-zero if
necessary.
Perhaps:
Reference identifiers and kiss codes can be up to four ASCII characters,
padded on the right with all-bits-zero if necessary.
-->
4) <!-- [rfced] Because the registries were created (i.e., it's no longer a
request), we updated the text as follows. Please let us know if
corrections are needed.
Original:
The formal request to define the registries
is in [RFC5905], Section 16.
Perhaps:
The registries were created per
Section 16 of [RFC5905].
-->
5) <!-- [rfced] Is this a real example of something that was registered
incorrectly? We don't see either of these values in
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/ntp-parameters/ntp-parameters.xhtml#ntp-parameters-3>
or
<http://web.archive.org/web/20230927142951/https://www.iana.org/assignments/ntp-parameters/ntp-parameters.xhtml#ntp-parameters-3>.
Would
it be helpful to use a real example (e.g., 0x0203 vs 0x0302 (Cookie Message
Request))?
Original:
* Many of the entries in the Extension Field Types registry have
swapped some of the nibbles; 0x1234 is listed as 0x1432 for
example.
-->
6) <!-- [rfced] Section 3: Because this document seems to only update the
NTP registries, may we update the text as follows?
Original:
The following general guidelines apply to all registries updated here:
Perhaps:
The following general guidelines apply to the NTP registries:
-->
7) <!-- [rfced] Section 3: This text seems misplaced. Perhaps this is
intended to appear in Section 4?
Original:
Each entry described in the sub-sections below is intended to
completely replace the existing entry with the same name.
-->
8) <!-- [rfced] Note that we have added "and this document has been added
as a reference" to the text in the IANA Considerations section. Please let
us know if any corrections are needed.
For example:
Original:
The registration procedure is changed to Specification Required.
Current:
The registration procedure has been changed to Specification Required
and this document has been added as a reference.
-->
9) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the text as follows to note that this
document has been added as a reference to the NTP Extension Field Types
registry. Please let us know if any updates are needed.
Original:
The registration procedure is changed to Specification Required.
The reference [RFC5906] should be added, if possible.
Current:
The registration procedure has been changed to Specification Required
and [RFC5906] and this document have been added as references.
-->
10) <!-- [rfced] To what does "the appropriate table" refer? Is it the
Reference column in table 1, or the tables as they appear in the IANA
registry?
Original:
This document adds no new security considerations, as they are
defined in the document that defines the extension. See the
References column of the appropriate table.
-->
11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
online Style Guide
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature
typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.
Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should
still be reviewed as a best practice.
-->
Thank you.
RFC Editor
On Feb 20, 2025, at 4:57 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2025/02/20
RFC Author(s):
--------------
Instructions for Completing AUTH48
Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
your approval.
Planning your review
---------------------
Please review the following aspects of your document:
* RFC Editor questions
Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
follows:
<!-- [rfced] ... -->
These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
* Changes submitted by coauthors
Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you
agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
* Content
Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
- IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
- contact information
- references
* Copyright notices and legends
Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
(TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
* Semantic markup
Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at
<https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
* Formatted output
Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting
limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
Submitting changes
------------------
To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
include:
* your coauthors
* rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team)
* other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
* auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list
to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
list:
* More info:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
* The archive itself:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
* Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and
its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format
Section # (or indicate Global)
OLD:
old text
NEW:
new text
You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in
the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
Approving for publication
--------------------------
To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
Files
-----
The files are available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9748.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9748.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9748.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9748.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9748-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9748-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9748-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9748
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9748 (draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-16)
Title : Updating the NTP Registries
Author(s) : R. Salz
WG Chair(s) : Dieter Sibold, Karen O'Donoghue
Area Director(s) : Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
