Hello, Robert! Thanks for your review. Your comments prompted one more read-through of the draft, with specific attention to your points, both to be more specific with actors and to refine the 2119 keywords. Karen O'Donoghue has been very helpful in helping us sort this out, and you can expect everything to be tighter in the next revision. Also, your point specifically about the sentence "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!)." We plan on changing this to: Depending on the application requirements, operators may need to consider backup scenarios in the rare circumstance when the satellite system is faulty or unavailable. Best Regards, -- Denis Reilly | Technical Lead | denis.reilly@xxxxxxxxxx (585)321-5837 -----Original Message----- From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 6:12 PM To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx Cc: ntp@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ntp-bcp.all@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ntp-bcp-10 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. ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails.
