+1 for not making historic and "no longer used" until there is a standardized replacement. Greg Dowd Microchip - Freq & Time Div. Assoc. Technical Fellow - Engineering 3870 N First St, San Jose, CA 95134 Direct: 408-964-7643 Greg.Dowd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -----Original Message----- From: ntp <ntp-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Ulrich Windl Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:32 AM To: resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx Cc: ek.ietf@xxxxxxxxx; ntp-chairs@xxxxxxxx; ntp@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds@xxxxxxxx; odonoghue@xxxxxxxx Subject: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-08.txt> (Control Messages Protocol for Use with Network Time Protocol Version 4) to Historic RFC EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe >>> "Pete Resnick" <resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb am 02.06.2020 um 19:17 >>> in Nachricht <14808_1591124438_5ED6A1D6_14808_2895_1_45F5F313-BFC6-48BB-B5A3-D47C48AE87D6@epi teme.net>: > This use of the "Historic" status seems utterly bizarre to me. It's > certainly not how it's described in 2026. > > 1305 has already been obsoleted by 5905. This document simply gives > information about what those control messages were and indicates that > they ought no longer be used. This sounds like a fine candidate for "They ought no longer to be used": ... once there is a well-established replacement! So what to use instead? Mode-6 commands are essential for monitoring the service. > Informational status. When 5905 (or it's successors) advance to > Standard, this document can be included in the STD. > > If eventually you want to move a document to Historic, it would be 1305. > > I don't think publishing this straight to Historic makes sense. With the argument given above, I also wouldn't name it "historic". _______________________________________________ ntp mailing list ntp@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
