Re: [6lo] Last Call: <draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-03.txt> (Packet Delivery Deadline time in 6LoWPAN Routing Header) to Proposed Standard
Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> Mon, 11 February 2019 13:13 UTC
Return-Path: <tal.mizrahi.phd@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 4AAD0130E8A; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:13:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 9hilAgmtL3qN; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:13:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x730.google.com (mail-qk1-x730.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::730]) (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 C0BEA12008A; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:13:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x730.google.com with SMTP id y140so6325653qkb.9; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:13:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=AOIpwo+Fl5JVMDcynpnMnd6XUjAJaDp1hyDBnMpc6Ws=; b=jB2tQg72VUIS9xhIxZlwrXNcANbCs0pVUoGpBM/qn78UdzUHcsi0Q1Irsuxbv3JDnF Vr2j1zotp6azp1z7AIvKl031b0Jmhx+0cRWia6Jd2y1Bx5NWXe7UHo4YRxwD+4JlUgx9 0G24aPHdN5zWZhbbwaNX/Yjxhp1XyX5kaGedKaKK+u8bmNlcwgdJDy7vWroTUFG3wClz tbndtTtcI7E8fF8txvw39sfXqZf3uRKPiej7sRiEdxYKcKSVPxe6CcZP0sFjpdjgZuE8 Bm7le1Dp5NvzaMLG8XR56fGEFMOiIvbIG6qTkZszITwQesnyUewzoXU062CBvp3H1SqI 1yZw==
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=AOIpwo+Fl5JVMDcynpnMnd6XUjAJaDp1hyDBnMpc6Ws=; b=dggWk48w+G2yGuuAs3WBrg/rACehUnFXCz01zF5BzhUPXnHDIWXhymriyuOqer9pI1 S2Zbn5TYOlAWWAIeqcVEB6K+2spQZU6iGV3PKJ4RiAtUYIeGSRaKu2fd3lO4+e5JCD8g 2B/VFtiXKY9lkxQqfrErOfd8JFu4CPX2OYS9b2uKlAtumlriT8gYps5fa0OerlwaGS1P TN3xy0on93cYMGtYmm8yEB+6N4zKu7AfQ+6MobLhPiVZLnpXnQVPn6GFEW7csKDKpo8U irbLdqDcAT8ppg4a1dVW9NrkKmQG9Qpwq+SFME6F2qZmn6U1UbYahJPLAE8fjS+TWdc2 59EQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZw1pzWCSxJPQ763uLbkTWnlYC56/jbsJwad6tVwR5X595y3ojs CCLmwJtmNE+172fwbo3T0/KCzrzL9ZdGePFoFfg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZvBTMc/735gIk6gowWcjsF2/eR8Fph5/7NmpyTDEIfPkFvd4SX3RQ/JVFJcvs5rHme5ssLAr+w/fu+7LnoeIo=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:79c5:: with SMTP id u188mr24849514qkc.259.1549890815892; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:13:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <154444480037.17333.5127536482994262799.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABUE3XnQSi9rJnN2pxp2ZmmMAF4-aTgZ3eFeuWgj7uDWkZDoHw@mail.gmail.com> <0277B06D-060A-44AB-BA7A-C02F3C6E5021@kaloom.com> <CABUE3XmL_XERozG96bCboxwsbSFWjxvbwyupvs+CjvFA8eR59Q@mail.gmail.com> <22cec0be-76df-9fed-45d9-48769d662506@earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <22cec0be-76df-9fed-45d9-48769d662506@earthlink.net>
From: Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 15:13:24 +0200
Message-ID: <CABUE3XmQ7LDwL6HyA0QZaL1=QBSUaXQE3b=hCO0vp23irct=Ag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
Cc: Suresh Krishnan <Suresh@kaloom.com>, "draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time@ietf.org>, "6lo-chairs@ietf.org" <6lo-chairs@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>, "ntp-chairs@ietf.org" <ntp-chairs@ietf.org>, IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000859fca05819e13d8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/tQzfudTNvnZov_8HVEikfNyuu7c>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Last Call: <draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-03.txt> (Packet Delivery Deadline time in 6LoWPAN Routing Header) to Proposed Standard
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: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:13:39 -0000
Hi Charlie, Thanks for reviewing the packet timestamp draft. Your suggestion makes sense to me. Just a minor question regarding your example below ("If we had a 12-bit timestamp format..."): The DTL and OTL fields specify the length of the DT and OT fields in octets, and therefore the length of DT and OT is a multiple of 8 bits. So the DT and OT can't be 12 bits long, right? Cheers, Tal. On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 4:25 AM Charlie Perkins < charles.perkins@earthlink.net> wrote: > Hello Tal and all, > > I have read draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-05.txt. This is an excellent > document. > > Our previous timestamp format in draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-03.txt > offers a lot of flexibility in a compact format, but maybe that much > flexibility is not needed. I would like to suggest that we use the > timestamp template in draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-05.txt, but with > possibly fewer bits than the 32-bit NTP format. As I understand it, that > format divides the available number of bits evenly between integral seconds > and fractional seconds. So, for instance, if we had an 8-bit timestamp > format, that would allow for 16 seconds total duration denominated in > sixteenths of a second (i.e., time units of about 64 milliseconds). That > would be pretty good for most purposes. If we had a 12-bit timestamp > format, that would allow for 64 seconds denominated in units of > approximately 16 milliseconds. If the optional Origination Time is > included, then we would mandate that the OT has the same time unit as the > DT. In this case, that translates to meaning that the number of bits for > fractional seconds is the same, but we could allow the OT to have fewer > bits for the integer number of seconds. > > If we go this way with predefined time designations according to the NTP > draft format, we don't need the Exp field. It is also possible that an > asymmetric number of bits would be considered to satisfy the specified > NTP-related format (i.e., not the same number of bits for fractional > seconds as for integer seconds). In that case, we could use a new field to > locate the binary point. We can make the definitions so that this new > information still fits within the space of the Deadline-6LoRHE format. One > could argue that this new field is analogous to the Exp field. > > draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-05.txt mandates certain details in the > Security Considerations which we will need to obey. It also suggests > inclusion of material about synchronization. I think we also have to do > consider doing that. > > What do you think? > > Regards, > Charlie P. > On 1/3/2019 5:02 AM, Tal Mizrahi wrote: > > Hi Suresh, authors, > > >> I would suggest to follow the timestamp specification template of > Section > >> 3 in draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-05. > > >I think the semantics of the DT and OT fields are a bit different from > the > >NTP packet timestamps and there are also resource constraints in the > >6lo world that might make the 64 bit formats expensive. I will let the > >authors and the WG comment further on this. > > > I agree that the NTP timestamp format does not fit here. > My comment was that DT and OT should be defined according to the timestamp > specification template (section 3 in the packet timestamp draft). > This is a *generic template* for defining all kinds of timestamp formats. > The template was defined in order to make sure that when you define a > timestamp format you do not forget important details. > Just to clarify, I am not suggesting to change the timestamp formats of DT > and OT, but only to specify them in a clear and unambiguous manner. > > Thanks, > Tal. > > > > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 11:00 PM Suresh Krishnan <Suresh@kaloom.com> wrote: > >> Hi Tal, >> >> On Dec 23, 2018, at 3:49 AM, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I am not a 6lo native, but I reviewed the draft specifically from a >> timestamp formatting perspective. >> In the NTP working group we currently have a draft in WGLC that presents >> guidelines for defining timestamp formats. >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-05 >> >> I believe that the definitions of the timestamps (DT and OT) >> in draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time should be more detailed. For example, >> aspects about the epoch and the potential effect of leap seconds are >> currently not described in the current draft. >> >> >> Good point. Authors, can you add some further descriptive text around >> these fields. >> >> I would suggest to follow the timestamp specification template of Section >> 3 in draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-05. >> >> >> I think the semantics of the DT and OT fields are a bit different from >> the NTP packet timestamps and there are also resource constraints in the >> 6lo world that might make the 64 bit formats expensive. I will let the >> authors and the WG comment further on this. >> >> Thanks >> Suresh >> >>
- [6lo] Last Call: <draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-03… The IESG
- Re: [6lo] Last Call: <draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-tim… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [6lo] Last Call: <draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-tim… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [6lo] Last Call: <draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-tim… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [6lo] Last Call: <draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-tim… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [6lo] Last Call: <draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-tim… Lijo Thomas
- Re: [6lo] Last Call: <draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-tim… Charlie Perkins
- Re: [6lo] Last Call: <draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-tim… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [6lo] [Ntp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-6lo-deadli… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [6lo] Last Call: <draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-tim… Charlie Perkins
- Re: [6lo] Last Call: <draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-tim… Tal Mizrahi