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

Barry Leiba via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sun, 12 May 2019 13:54 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 ECB931200A4; Sun, 12 May 2019 06:54:26 -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, 6lo@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.96.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Message-ID: <155766926695.31687.17410585533455050681.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 06:54:26 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/YZ2wIeNml5R65N-6ILuo4_kWcnE>
Subject: [6lo] Barry Leiba'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: Sun, 12 May 2019 13:54:27 -0000

Barry Leiba 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This should be easy to explain and clear up, but I have to ask, as I don’t see
anything about it in the document: what deters entities from using this with a
short deadline time in order to get expedited delivery, when they don’t need
it?  How does this help a network if, ultimately, every transmission specifies
a very short deadline time?


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

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

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

— Section 5 —

The definition of “TU” is out of order; please move it so it’s in the same
order in the definitions as in the block.

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?