[6lo] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-05: (with COMMENT)

Barry Leiba via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 09 July 2019 02:04 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietf.org
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB2A12015A; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 19:04:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time@ietf.org, Samita Chakrabarti <samitac.ietf@gmail.com>, Shwetha Bhandari <shwethab@cisco.com>, 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, shwethab@cisco.com, 6lo@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.98.3
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Message-ID: <156263785090.1025.11300358419204649150.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 19:04:10 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/8rW9pKIwzqAO6pfO9KkD3aPTF6g>
Subject: [6lo] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 02:04:11 -0000

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


The changes to the Security Considerations on version -05 address my concern
about abuse of the deadline time.  Thanks for that, and I'm clearing my DISCUSS

Editorial comments that are still relevant in version -05:

In the Introduction, please expand “BLE” on first use.

In “Terminology”, you’re citing RFC 8174, but not using the new BCP 14
boilerplate from there.  Please copy/paste the new boilerplate.

— Section 5 —

Why is DTL the length *minus 1*?  Doesn’t that invite mistakes?  Is there a
reason not to make it the length, and to say that 0 is not a valid value?  Do
you really need the extra size that the extra bit provides?