Dan, thanks for your reviews. Authors, thanks for your responses. I entered a No Objection ballot. Alissa > On Mar 9, 2020, at 11:40 AM, Dan Romascanu via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > Review result: Ready > > 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-using-nts-for-ntp-23 > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > Review Date: 2020-03-09 > IETF LC End Date: 2020-02-28 > IESG Telechat date: 2020-03-12 > > Summary: > > Ready. > > A very clear, well written, nicely organized document. > > While reviewing version -22 of the document I had a minor non-blocking comment > about marking unused entries in the tables in Sections 7.6, 7.7, 7.8 that may > be used for future extensions as 'Reserved for Future Standard Use'. > > An exchange of mails with the editors clarified that they are following the > recommendations at https://www.iana.org/help/protocol-registration>, under > "Lists Versus Tables”, which say: > "For an example of an IANA Considerations > section that uses tables, see RFC 6940. For an example that uses lists, see RFC > 5804.” > > While I still believe that explicit marking entries in the tables as 'Reserved > for Future Standard Use' makes things more clear and avoids future problems, I > can live with following the IANA recommendations above. This was a minor > non-blocking issue anyway. > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
