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

Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> Thu, 29 August 2019 14:01 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38BDD120071; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 07:01:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cert.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yO6dVpjPilMK; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 07:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from veto.sei.cmu.edu (veto.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB08B12004A; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 07:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from delp.sei.cmu.edu (delp.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.31]) by veto.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id x7TE1Qd0035051; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 10:01:27 -0400
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 veto.sei.cmu.edu x7TE1Qd0035051
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cert.org; s=yc2bmwvrj62m; t=1567087287; bh=y4OZu792CQglPt+3UDk3/EgePMuCQB8pj5OS1zlNGjA=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ktJmZR9hIxoJUA/AZ9ncl7M8Wvaom8eEHW2kFhHwhMxEOQ0chzJJjCGionkM2WP5d AowsvtXDMS74takG8FvFsXCc+Rsb9sFY+h5xpE9Q0w9qyzAuPpTLgwYCBDmtb4usqa sNzERckhci2rwJTGPk/8UhGt+ttkMryIIhuvU+ts=
Received: from CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cascade.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.248]) by delp.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id x7TE1Dh3026250; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 10:01:13 -0400
Received: from MARATHON.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.250]) by CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.248]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 10:01:13 -0400
From: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
To: Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time@ietf.org>, Samita Chakrabarti <samitac.ietf@gmail.com>, Shwetha Bhandari <shwethab@cisco.com>, "6lo-chairs@ietf.org" <6lo-chairs@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHVC+p0iI1H1iUd+0SYI5WmTYFURaaGFyUAgIneOWA=
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 14:01:11 +0000
Message-ID: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC01B3442DBB@marathon>
References: <155801295610.19776.17352306388780302849.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <aaf94f20-fdde-ff3c-aacb-1332e2ae080a@earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <aaf94f20-fdde-ff3c-aacb-1332e2ae080a@earthlink.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.22.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/ijKT_KLNrmdWA8jM4CeGeDMzDhs>
Subject: Re: [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
Precedence: list
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, 29 Aug 2019 14:01:38 -0000

Hi Charlie!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charlie Perkins [mailto:charles.perkins@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 5:15 PM
> To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>;; 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
> Subject: Re: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-04:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Hello Roman,
> 
> Please see below for some follow-up...
> 
> On 5/16/2019 6:22 AM, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker wrote:
> > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-04: Discuss
> >
> > ...
> >
> > 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.
> 
> 
> I agree with this.  Please also refer to my response to Magnus's observation
> and DISCUSS.

The new text in -05 addresses my concerns. Thank you for the update.

> 
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > (1) I also support Barry’s DISCUSS on the need to discuss what happens to a
> > network where all senders have short deadlines
> 
> I also agree with this as noted in my response to Barry's observation
> and DISCUSS.  We will fashion appropriate text, and my guess is that it
> would go into the Security Considerations.  Do you think that is the
> right place?
>
> >
> > (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”?
> 
> I don't have the answer to that question.  I could imagine that
> intermediate devices are configured with traffic descriptors that cause
> a match to the "Forward_IF_D=0" behavior.  We could make a suggestion,
> but then avoid a normative condition for this behavior by specifying
> that the configuration details are out of scope for this document.
> Would that be O.K.?

Makes sense to me.
 
> 
> >
> > (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.
> 
> This has been discussed in other emails as well.  It is possible to
> mandate that the Deadline header SHOULD NOT cause pre-emption. I think
> such mandates are not enforceable, but would anyway serve as guidance
> for implementation.

I tend to agree.

> 
> >
> > (4) Editorial nits:
> > ** Section 4.  Typo.  s/the the/the/
> 
> 
> Thanks much for your review!

Thanks for the updates!

Roman

> Regards,
> Charlie P.
> 
> 
> >
> >