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

[Charlie Perkins <[e-mail]>]

Hello Barry,

I will make the editorial updates as suggested -- sorry I missed them 
this time.

I think that DTL should be able to count to 16, and it would be nice for 
it to fit in 4 bits.  For this reason, I hope it will be O.K to maintain 
the definition of DTL as it is.

Regards,
Charlie P.


On 7/8/2019 7:04 PM, Barry Leiba via Datatracker wrote:
> 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:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
> now.
>
> 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?
>
>
>