Robert, thanks for your reviews of this document. I’ve flagged some of your specific comments in my ballot. I entered a DISCUSS ballot to ensure that RFC 2119 and RFC 8174 get changed to normative references. Thanks, Alissa > On Dec 13, 2018, at 6:12 PM, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review result: Ready with Nits > > 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 > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
