Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile-26: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This seems like what RFC 2026 defines as an Applicability Statement. Should it say so explicitly? NTP in the Abstract could use a reference to its RFC. The SHOULD in Section 5 is bare. When might an implementer legitimately decide to deviate from the advice given there? Or maybe MUST is better? The first SHOULD in Section 9 seems to me to be redundant to the MUST that precedes it. Is the SHOULD in Section 10 a restatement of the SHOULD in the last paragraph of Section 6? _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
