[auth48] [Doc Shepherd] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9510 <draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv-05> for your review

[Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]>]

Hi Cenk, Dirk*, 

My apologies for the delayed update.  This is much more clear to us; thank you for providing the updated XML file. 

*Dirk, as document shepherd, would you please review the updates and let us know if you approve?  The changes were made in response to our questions.  The update is much more clear to us, but it is a significant update, so we would like you to review. 

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510-lastrfcdiff.html (side-by-side diff)
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510-lastdiff.html


Authors, the current files are available here: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510.txt
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510.html

Diffs highlighting the most recent updates only: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510-lastdiff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510-lastrfcdiff.html

AUTH48 diff: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510-auth48diff.html

Comprehensive diffs: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510-rfcdiff.html

Thank you,
RFC Editor/sg




> On Feb 8, 2024, at 6:50 AM, Cenk Gundogan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hello Sandy,
> 
> The new definition shows two separate representations where the Length value decides which of these representations to use.  If Length equals 1, the time is encoded in the shorter form (COMPACT_TIME); if Length is greater 1, the former definition (as in Figure 11 of https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8609#section-3.4.1 ) is to be applied.
> 
> My immediate suggestion to eliminate confusion is to remove the former definition (where it says Length > 1) in the figure and only keep the short representation (Length == 1).  In the text, we then mention that for Lengths not equal 1, the former definition is to be applied.
> 
> I attached an XML containing this suggestion.  As before, changes are documented in the RFCed comment block in the line starting with "Authors:".
> 
> Thanks,
> Cenk
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 12:28 AM
> To: Cenk Gundogan <[e-mail]>
> Cc: RFC Editor <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9510 <draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv-05> for your review
> 
> Hi Cenk, 
> 
> Thank you for your reply and the updated XML file.  We have updated the files and posted the revisions, but we have a followup regarding the figures.  The figure is still unclear to me in that it looks like two separate figures.  It seems that the shorter Length and COMPACT_TIME TLVs are added to the header and are not replacements for the longer Length TLVs and the TLVs of Lifetime or Recommended Cache Time.  Are they appended to the front of the header?  Are there other TLVs between COMPACT_TIME and these TLVs?  Should the artwork look like the following? 
> 
>                    1                   2                   3
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
> |           T_INTLIFE           |           Length = 1          |
> +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
> | COMPACT_TIME  |                                               /
> +---------------+              ...                              / 
> /                                                               /
> +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
> |           T_INTLIFE           |           Length > 1          |
> +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
> /                                                               /
> /                      Lifetime (Length octets)                 /
> /                                                               /
> +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
> 
> 
> The files are available here: 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510.xml
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510.txt
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510.pdf
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510.html
> 
> AUTH48 diff: 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510-auth48diff.html
> 
> Comprehensive diffs: 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510-diff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510-rfcdiff.html
> 
> 
> Thanks, 
> RFC Editor/sg
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 5, 2024, at 1:56 AM, Cenk Gundogan <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]> 
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 5:36 PM
>> To: Cenk Gundogan <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: RFC Editor <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9510 <draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv-05> for your review
>> 
>> Hi Cenk,
>> 
>> Thank you for your letting us know your plans - we will wait to hear from you.  
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> RFC Editor/sg
>> 
>>> On Jan 31, 2024, at 4:56 AM, Cenk Gundogan <cenk.gundogan=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear RFC Editor,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for reviewing, editing, and providing below comments.  We will go through each question and reply within 1 to 3 days.
>>> 
>>> PS: dropped [e-mail] and [e-mail] for this particular e-mail to reduce chatter.  They will be added for subsequent e-mails.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Cenk Gündoğan
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 4:29 AM
>>> To: Cenk Gundogan <[e-mail]>; 
>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9510 <draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv-05> 
>>> for your review
>>> 
>>> Authors,
>>> 
>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>> 
>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] We note that <em> has been used for the following, but the pattern of use is not clear to us.  The terms were not consistently italicized; are italics needed?  Please review and let us know if any updates are desired. 
>>> 
>>> <em>CCNx messages in TLV Format</em>
>>> -> we removed italics here since it seems to be a short name for RFC 8609.  
>>> 
>>> <em>Signature Time</em>
>>> <em>Expiry Time</em>
>>> <em>Recommended Cache Time</em>
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Is "expressed as accurate" an important concept?  May the text be simplified for readability? 
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> The recommended
>>> cache time can thus not be expressed as accurate as with absolute
>>> time.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> Thus, the recommended
>>> cache time cannot be as accurate as when absolute
>>> time is used.
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] This is the only place where "ICNLoWPAN" appears when not used as a citation tag.  Please confirm that this text refers to the content of RFC 9139.  Otherwise, please let us know how this text should be updated.  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Original: 
>>> This document uses the compact time representation of ICNLoWPAN (see
>>> section 7 of [RFC9139]) that is inspired by [RFC5497] and
>>> [IEEE.754.2019].
>>> 
>>> Perhaps: 
>>> This document uses the compact time representation described in
>>> "Information-Centric Networking (ICN) Adaptation to Low-Power
>>> Wireless Personal Area Networks (LoWPANs)" (see Section 7 of
>>> [RFC9139]) that was inspired by [RFC5497] and [IEEE.754.2019].
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] To what does "sign bit" refer here?  This is the only place we see "sign bit" used. 
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> Time codes encode exponent and mantissa values in a single byte, but
>>> in contrast to the representation in [IEEE.754.2019], time codes only
>>> encode non-negative numbers and hence do not include a separate sign
>>> bit.
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] For readability, may we change "to encode" to "to be encoded" or "the value being encoded"?  Is "to encode" being used to match how "encode" appears in the pseudocode? 
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> For these instances,
>>> the closest time code is chosen that is smaller than the value to
>>> encode.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>>  For these instances, the closest time code that is smaller than the 
>>>  value to be encoded is chosen.
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Please review each artwork element and let us know if any should be marked as sourcecode (or another element) instead.
>>> 
>>> We updated an instance of <artwork> to <sourcecode type="pseudocode">. Please confirm that this is correct.  Please consider whether the “type" 
>>> attribute of any sourcecode element should be set and/or has been set correctly.
>>> 
>>> The current list of preferred values for "type" is available at https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt. If the current list does not contain an applicable type, feel free to suggest additions for consideration. Note that it is also acceptable to leave the "type"
>>> attribute not set.
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] For readability, may we add "smaller than 0.063"?  
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> As an example: No specific time code for 0.063 exists, but this
>>> algorithm maps to the closest valid time code that is smaller, i.e.,
>>> exponent 1 and mantissa 0 (the same as for time value 0.0625).
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> For example, no specific time code for 0.063 exists. However, this
>>> algorithm maps to the closest valid time code that is smaller than 
>>> 0.063, i.e., exponent 1 and mantissa 0 (the same as for time value 
>>> 0.0625).
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] May we update "Both" to specify RFCs 8569 and 8609, as <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search/rfc_search.php> currently returns 7 RFCs when searching for "CCNx" - 4 Experimental and 3 Informational. 
>>> 
>>> Original: 
>>> *  Both CCNx RFCs are experimental and not Standards Track, hence
>>>    expectations for forward and backward compatibility are not as
>>>    stringent.
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Figures 4 and 5 are not easily understood without additional context.  Please consider whether one of the following suggestions is acceptable, or please suggest an alternative. 
>>> 
>>> Note: figures have been ommitted to ensure we don't break the output files. 
>>> 
>>> Section 5.1 original: 
>>> This document changes the
>>> definition to always encode 1-byte Interest lifetime values in the
>>> compact time value representation (Figure 4).
>>> 
>>> New figure
>>> 
>>> Old figure
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Perhaps A:
>>> This document changes the
>>> definition to always encode 1-byte Interest Lifetime values in the
>>> compact time value representation (see Figure 4).
>>> 
>>> Figure 4: new figure only
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Perhaps B: 
>>> This document changes the 
>>> definition to always encode 1-byte Interest Lifetime values in the
>>> compact time value representation (see Figure 4). 
>>> 
>>> Figure 4
>>> 
>>> As defined in Section 3.4.2 of [RFC8609]: 
>>> Old figure
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Figure 5: 
>>> New figure
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Note that we would make a similar update to Figure 5. 
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] Please consider whether the suggested update maintains the intended meaning.  
>>> 
>>> Original: 
>>> Additional considerations need to be made in networks
>>> that deploy forwarders with support (updated forwarder) and without
>>> support (legacy forwarder) for this compact time representation:
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> Careful consideration is needed for networks
>>> that deploy forwarders with support (updated forwarder) and without
>>> support (legacy forwarder) for this compact time representation:
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 11) <!-- [rfced] The URL for [ICNLOWPAN] returns "There was a problem 
>>> providing the content you requested" and we were unable to locate a 
>>> replacement.  Attempting to reach the file via the DOI number
>>> (10.1016/j.comcom.2020.10.002) yields the same result. Please review and let us know how this entry should be updated. 
>>> 
>>> Original: 
>>> [ICNLOWPAN]
>>>            Gündoğan, C., Kietzmann, P., Schmidt, T., and M. Wählisch,
>>>            "Designing a LoWPAN convergence layer for the Information                    
>>>            Centric Internet of Things", Computer Communications, Vol.
>>>            164, No. 1, p. 114–123, Elsevier, December 2020,
>>>            <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2020.10.002>.
>>> 
>>> We were able to locate a PDF - is this link expected to remain stable? 
>>> https://netd.inf.tu-dresden.de/papers/gksw-dlcli-20.pdf
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 12)     <!-- [rfced] Please review the following terminology questions and 
>>> let us know how/if we may update the document.
>>> 
>>> A) We have updated the text to use the form on the right.  Please let us know if any updates are needed.
>>> 
>>> Interest lifetime vs. Interest Lifetime (consistent with RFC 8609)
>>> 
>>> B) Please review the following and let us know if/how the capitalization of RCT may be made consistent.
>>> 
>>> Recommended Cache Time (RCT) vs recommended cache time
>>> 
>>> C) RFC 8569 uses Content Object throughout, while this document uses the lowercase form.  Please let us know if changes are needed.
>>> -->             
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 13) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the 
>>> Online Style Guide 
>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
>>> and let us know if any changes are needed.
>>> 
>>> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this 
>>> should still be reviewed as a best practice.
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you.
>>> 
>>> RFC Editor
>>> 
>>> On Jan 29, 2024, at 7:25 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> 
>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>> 
>>> Updated 2024/01/29
>>> 
>>> RFC Author(s):
>>> --------------
>>> 
>>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48
>>> 
>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
>>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
>>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
>>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/)
>>> 
>>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
>>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
>>> your approval.
>>> 
>>> Planning your review
>>> ---------------------
>>> 
>>> Please review the following aspects of your document:
>>> 
>>> *  RFC Editor questions
>>> 
>>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
>>> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
>>> follows:
>>> 
>>> <!-- [rfced] ... -->
>>> 
>>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
>>> 
>>> *  Changes submitted by coauthors
>>> 
>>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
>>> coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
>>> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
>>> 
>>> *  Content
>>> 
>>> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
>>> change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
>>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
>>> - contact information
>>> - references
>>> 
>>> *  Copyright notices and legends
>>> 
>>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
>>> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
>>> (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/)
>>> 
>>> *  Semantic markup
>>> 
>>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
>>> content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
>>> and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
>>> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
>>> 
>>> *  Formatted output
>>> 
>>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
>>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
>>> reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
>>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Submitting changes
>>> ------------------
>>> 
>>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
>>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
>>> include:
>>> 
>>> *  your coauthors
>>> 
>>> *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)
>>> 
>>> *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
>>>    IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
>>>    responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
>>> 
>>> *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
>>>    to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
>>>    list:
>>> 
>>>   *  More info:
>>> 
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxI
>>> Ae6P8O4Zc
>>> 
>>>   *  The archive itself:
>>>      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
>>> 
>>>   *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
>>>      of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
>>>      If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
>>>      have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
>>>      [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
>>>      its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 
>>> 
>>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
>>> 
>>> An update to the provided XML file
>>> — OR —
>>> An explicit list of changes in this format
>>> 
>>> Section # (or indicate Global)
>>> 
>>> OLD:
>>> old text
>>> 
>>> NEW:
>>> new text
>>> 
>>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
>>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
>>> 
>>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that 
>>> seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion 
>>> of text, and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can 
>>> be found in the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Approving for publication
>>> --------------------------
>>> 
>>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email 
>>> stating that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY 
>>> ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Files
>>> -----
>>> 
>>> The files are available here:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510.xml
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510.html
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510.pdf
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510.txt
>>> 
>>> Diff file of the text:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510-diff.html
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510-rfcdiff.html (side by 
>>> side)
>>> 
>>> Diff of the XML: 
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510-xmldiff1.html
>>> 
>>> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
>>> diff files of the XML.
>>> 
>>> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510.original.v2v3.xml
>>> 
>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
>>> only: 
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9510.form.xml
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Tracking progress
>>> -----------------
>>> 
>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9510
>>> 
>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>> 
>>> RFC Editor
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> RFC9510 (draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv-05)
>>> 
>>> Title            : Alternative Delta Time Encoding for CCNx Using Compact Floating-Point Arithmetic
>>> Author(s)        : C. Gündoğan, T. Schmidt, D. Oran, M. Wählisch
>>> WG Chair(s)      : 
>>> Area Director(s) : 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> <rfc9510.xml>