[6lo] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 16 May 2019 13:22 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 1BC41120025; Thu, 16 May 2019 06:22:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw 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: 6.96.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <155801295610.19776.17352306388780302849.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 06:22:36 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/DWf5P6IwqYyalYzBrWYDZSUFUTE>
Subject: [6lo] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-04: (with DISCUSS and 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: Thu, 16 May 2019 13:22:36 -0000

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-04: Discuss

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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Magnus’s DISCUSS #1 (and perhaps we are noting the same thing)

The current Security Considerations text needs explicit discussion of the
impact of the deadline being manipulated.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) I also support Barry’s DISCUSS on the need to discuss what happens to a
network where all senders have short deadlines

(2) Section 5.  Per the description of the D flag, how would a forwarding
device “suspect that a downstream node might find [a packet] useful”?

(3) Section 6.  Is there normative language about the behavior of forwarding
entities when encountering the Deadline header in this section?  If not, I’d
recommend adding explicit text to that effect.

(4) Editorial nits:
** Section 4.  Typo.  s/the the/the/