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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Tue, 09 July 2019 05:31 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
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 079E81202F8; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 22:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.247, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PDS_NO_HELO_DNS=1.295, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 8u4z389Gd0gG; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 22:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-f50.google.com (mail-io1-f50.google.com [209.85.166.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E16CD1200F7; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 22:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-f50.google.com with SMTP id u19so40478124ior.9; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 22:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0UQjiapGLjUWdHBeqF+P95pnP4bzeoboK57a9kYCsVM=; b=Xj8lKYoXjzPEl8qT2wHRfdqN2JDM/kSZZnuvX82GX6YYvvrdFtWGeetydDIGXHXbzi CKtHw+Aki77Tu92fOQ7GwYx8dUd02bkpExBTcrOJjHhsz2zw+voX9qzvNdm+2aiixeAQ UYNxsH396KJmRHwBUC+2FO7QXIDTU3D1InD7o6X5PjlDDx+pyD2p9yFCCIxUKyIBokWy 2Ol8I1baQh95MoRHvbKIOWZaVNMbYTeltXe9InpvwoYTkv25ty4dg+nOyHRZ3vfTheqd 4oUWiD1CBs4Wlc9kbZWC7JUf2hvqZvappS9N2g9PyCQexIIwOJzsEvWWfKkamqsv3I2T bvTg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX6OOxbQlOODlk5XTugD9Iw6jZVo48h1JjoOEc3UFbiD56Bvw6U qGYo8oUxljBWvf5vtYXWJBmM2XGp7DMZWVH1BBA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy7PcHhtRUSwPdaLQORgdGSBM/gSgEz6EnG44dtbzE7GCSs9Ni8rSSkZd/xDozF4DxVVOv+TKHiP8P19p3CEEg=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9613:: with SMTP id w19mr23647130iol.140.1562650312791; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 22:31:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <156263785090.1025.11300358419204649150.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <55603799-cf79-ce5c-18d2-d4a25f2bfc95@earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <55603799-cf79-ce5c-18d2-d4a25f2bfc95@earthlink.net>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 01:31:40 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJKV6v9w1dQMYk6KxUWZcnNJNyhmaF_-FH1t5dcx-=yFZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
Cc: 6lo@ietf.org, 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, Samita Chakrabarti <samitac.ietf@gmail.com>, Shwetha Bhandari <shwethab@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cd5d00058d38e026"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/qe3ALofNmhFQIvL1HYaAMnOg3NI>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-05: (with 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: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 05:31:56 -0000

Sure, Charlie: my comment is just a comment, and if it’s best to leave DTL
and OTL defined as they are, then definitely do so.  No worries.

To answer Carsten, the issue isn’t with DTL itself: it’s that DTL and OTL
are defined differently.  OTL is the length and DTL is the length minus
one, and it’s that they’re different that I think might result in
implementation errors.

Anyway, no further discussion needed, and thanks for the discussion we’ve
had.

Barry

On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 10:10 PM Charlie Perkins <
charles.perkins@earthlink.net>; wrote:

> 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?
> >
> >
> >
>