Re: [6lo] Last Call: <draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-03.txt> (Packet Delivery Deadline time in 6LoWPAN Routing Header) to Proposed Standard

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

I agree with specifying time semantics with more details as Tal suggested
(see below),

Furthermore, I suggest that we can add another delivery deadline time known
as the interval time. The interval time is the maximum time before another
packet of the same type as the received one from the same originator should
be received. IMO it can be more useful in LLNs, as it can be useful in
MANETs [RFC5497].

So suggest the draft replaces 'packet delivery deadline' with 'packet
delivery validity time', so that there can be two 'delivery deadlines' of
6LoWPAN routing header packets, one is the validity time and the second is
interval time (or maybe one of them can be optional).

AB

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 3:02 PM Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Suresh, authors,
>
> >> I would suggest to follow the timestamp specification template of
> Section
> >> 3 in draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-05.
>
> >I think the semantics of the DT and OT fields are a bit different from
> the
> >NTP packet timestamps and there are also resource constraints in the
> >6lo world that might make the 64 bit formats expensive. I will let the
> >authors and the WG comment further on this.
>
>
> I agree that the NTP timestamp format does not fit here.
> My comment was that DT and OT should be defined according to the timestamp
> specification template (section 3 in the packet timestamp draft).
> This is a *generic template* for defining all kinds of timestamp formats.
> The template was defined in order to make sure that when you define a
> timestamp format you do not forget important details.
> Just to clarify, I am not suggesting to change the timestamp formats of DT
> and OT, but only to specify them in a clear and unambiguous manner.
>
> Thanks,
> Tal.
>
>
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 2:27 PM The IESG <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 over Networks of
> Resource-constrained Nodes WG (6lo) to consider the following document: -
> 'Packet Delivery Deadline time in 6LoWPAN Routing Header'
>   <draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-03.txt> as Proposed Standard
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> [e-mail] mailing lists by 2018-12-24. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of
> the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>
>    This document specifies a new type for the 6LoWPAN routing header
>    containing the delivery deadline time for data packets.  The deadline
>    time enables forwarding and scheduling decisions for time critical
>    IoT M2M applications that need deterministic delay guarantees over
>    constrained networks and operate within time-synchronized networks.
>
>
>
>
> The file can be obtained via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time/
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time/ballot/
>
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>
>
> The document contains these normative downward references.
> See RFC 3967 for additional information:
>     draft-ietf-6tisch-terminology: Terms Used in IPv6 over the TSCH mode
> of IEEE 802.15.4e (None - IETF stream)
>
>
>
>