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

Charlie Perkins <> Fri, 31 May 2019 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F047120072; Fri, 31 May 2019 14:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.115
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.115 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_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.415, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key); domainkeys=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ui1ENJBSzO00; Fri, 31 May 2019 14:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E89D1200F9; Fri, 31 May 2019 14:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=dk12062016; t=1559337333; bh=+XqhIzHUz167YWXAlvyp5kT+U6nF/jhYAvLT Z+mCvvw=; h=Received:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Message-ID:Date: User-Agent:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Language:X-ELNK-Trace: X-Originating-IP; b=S79+4laj3HyL/C3wq9GsUXjDIy34losmgvV6hUrHfD/iS8 aMpfDA1Uz8Dy1Va5AxQmyY1ClA5ukK9UN3k/BeR5abo+2QsRrntTDgNF1mkcHrlUeRw iy30knmlHVtqz6usJAmm+H2Jdc9XC8zhudqriKsTsMXqedR0FPlfWk5fB9T1WhivWsy 1Or1Yjrp6orjFzgdsxDlfsBLUGEcFnhRYuOH9pOGL3OQZHsn6l6DGqi6rC+mXTLPAgQ 0MYsVH3WmLULdkPTslMleyheWNFmIzuEd9DRF9fXncSTiOek3RLZwnxN/uE3BaYHmdp a8cH4FCozNJ3k2pXWZpMCS0ghHaA==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk12062016;; b=J5uwx9IXnI1MPxuOhOfsl8mvJUm0f5+5XsScrznZSkJGAc88UzIdfm4TDN+cS1D9u3OSTjeCADnbONNl5PU6YQIPW14dJJWtJG0U3VtP/kMgH1Wwdqi77zfOhS7rugQkJULQy9NuDqaXF5xox+cMXSWvDSO5nrReIHhcXXHOU/SDh8fxta1ODgKzokc3m+LudRC4mdiQeHq4OsDmNeP9y5dv49vJX/7Jda08j0m9Fzt/Ea5p4czNtGwzR/smBi/utmxKAaMgbNmnjZ6UGuyEpRCC6xdrvW5vrIcm95z6TPlJK0dfXGpiZBWUozP1ukSiho2GlW3f0gkYBjHXVQbJ1w==; h=Received:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Message-ID:Date:User-Agent:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Language:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [] (helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4) (envelope-from <>) id 1hWos7-0006n6-Mj; Fri, 31 May 2019 17:15:31 -0400
To: Roman Danyliw <>, The IESG <>
Cc:, Samita Chakrabarti <>, Shwetha Bhandari <>,,
References: <>
From: Charlie Perkins <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 14:15:24 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956846b590522b13c9509b3df8f58a32346e4eb128238c9e78e350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 21:15:35 -0000

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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> (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.?

> (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.

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

Thanks much for your review!

Charlie P.