Re: [C310] [AD] Re: AUTH48 [JM]: RFC 9034 <draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-05.txt> NOW AVAILABLE

Charlie Perkins <charliep@computer.org> Mon, 17 May 2021 19:36 UTC

Return-Path: <charliep@computer.org>
X-Original-To: c310@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: c310@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56050F407C4; Mon, 17 May 2021 12:36:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.038
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.038 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=2, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.972, SUBJECT_IN_WHITELIST=-100, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KFsb4W9Sqvm0; Mon, 17 May 2021 12:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.68]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BFF0F407C0; Mon, 17 May 2021 12:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [50.197.142.146] (helo=[172.21.0.88]) by elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4) (envelope-from <charliep@computer.org>) id 1lij26-000FOk-27; Mon, 17 May 2021 15:36:06 -0400
To: Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com>, Lijo Thomas <lijo@cdac.in>, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, satishnaidu80@gmail.com, "'S.V.R.Anand'" <anandsvr@iisc.ac.in>, 'Malati Hegde' <malati@iisc.ac.in>, ek.ietf@gmail.com
Cc: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, 6lo-ads@ietf.org, shwethab@cisco.com, c310@rfc-editor.org
References: <20210513181917.B37DEF4074D@rfc-editor.org> <005001d74b19$62bcb980$28362c80$@cdac.in> <c3ecb73f-dea6-330f-5c67-2baa39cac6d2@amsl.com>
From: Charlie Perkins <charliep@computer.org>
Organization: Blue Sky Meadows
Message-ID: <b92c3841-2ad1-533d-6f7c-18265fa071c3@computer.org>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 12:36:04 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c3ecb73f-dea6-330f-5c67-2baa39cac6d2@amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956df8303b86ceddf55a26d47b5011c841849bf012c4845a722350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 50.197.142.146
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 17 May 2021 12:38:04 -0700
Subject: Re: [C310] [AD] Re: AUTH48 [JM]: RFC 9034 <draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-05.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
X-BeenThere: c310@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <c310.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/c310>, <mailto:c310-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/c310/>
List-Post: <mailto:c310@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:c310-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/c310>, <mailto:c310-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 19:36:14 -0000

Hello Jean and all,

Now that my affiliation has been updated, I don't have any other changes 
required before publication.

Naturally Yours,
Charlie P.


On 5/17/2021 8:26 AM, Jean Mahoney wrote:
> Lijo,
>
> Thank you for the updated XML file. Very helpful! We have removed the 
> XML comments that pertained to closed questions and comments:
>
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9034-lastxmlrfcdiff.html 
> (these changes to the XML)
>
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9034.txt
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9034.pdf
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9034.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9034.xml
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9034-diff.html (all changes)
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9034-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 
> changes)
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9034-auth48rfcdiff.html 
> (AUTH48 changes side by side)
>
> We will await further word from you, your coauthors, and the AD 
> regarding other AUTH48 changes and/or approval.
>
> Best regards,
>
> RFC Editor/jm
>
>
> On 5/17/21 7:37 AM, Lijo Thomas wrote:
>>   Hello,
>>
>>   Thanks for the suggestions/inputs. We have updated the XML file < 
>> rfc9034-updated> and is attached herewith.
>>
>>   Our responses to the suggested changes is tagged with "[Author 
>> Resp]" in the XML.
>>
>>   Also attached the diff file indicating the updates.
>>
>>   Please let us know if there is any further clarification or inputs 
>> required from our end.
>>   Thanks & Regards,
>>   Lijo Thomas
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
>> Sent: 13 May 2021 23:49
>> To: lijo@cdac.in; satishnaidu80@gmail.com; anand@ece.iisc.ernet.in; 
>> malati@ece.iisc.ernet.in; charliep@computer.org; ek.ietf@gmail.com
>> Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org; 6lo-ads@ietf.org; 6lo-chairs@ietf.org; 
>> shwethab@cisco.com; c310@rfc-editor.org
>> Subject: [AD] Re: AUTH48 [JM]: RFC 9034 
>> <draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-05.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
>>
>> Authors, AD,
>>
>> *Erik (as AD), please reply to #1.
>>
>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48 
>> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9034.html and additional 
>> formats), please resolve the following questions, which are also in 
>> the XML file.
>>
>> 1) <!-- [rfced] AD: Please review and let us know if you approve the 
>> changes made after -05 of this draft was approved. They are shown in 
>> this diff file (comparing -05 and -06):
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc9034-postapproval-rfcdiff.html
>>
>> Note: -06 was provided by the author in October 2019; it is not in 
>> the Datatracker.
>>
>> For the purpose of AUTH48, the .original for this file is -05 (the 
>> approved draft), so these changes are also viewable in the various 
>> diff files provided.
>> -->
>>
>>
>> 2) <!-- [rfced] FYI, the title of the document has been updated as 
>> follows to expand the abbreviation. Please review.
>>
>> Current:
>>     Packet Delivery Deadline Time in the 6LoWPAN Routing Header
>>
>> Perhaps:
>>     Packet Delivery Deadline Time in the Routing Header for
>>     IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)
>> -->
>>
>>
>> 3) <!-- [rfced]  FYI, the authors' comments in the XML file have been 
>> marked with [auth].  Please let us know if any updates are needed 
>> based on those comments; if not, they will be removed.
>> -->
>>
>>
>> 4) <!-- [rfced]  We have updated Lijo Thomas's address. Please let us 
>> know if other changes are necessary.
>>
>> Original:
>>     Lijo Thomas
>>     C-DAC
>>     Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), Vellayambalam
>>     Trivandrum  695033
>>     India
>>
>> Current (The organization abbreviation (C-DAC) is given in the header):
>>     Lijo Thomas
>>     Centre for Development of Advanced Computing
>>     Vellayambalam
>>     Trivandrum 695033
>>     India
>> -->
>>
>>
>> 5) <!-- [rfced]  Please review the following changes for accuracy of 
>> these authors' names.
>>
>> Original: <author fullname="Lijo Thomas" initials="" surname="Lijo 
>> Thomas">
>> Current:  <author fullname="Lijo Thomas" initials="L." surname="Thomas">
>>
>> Original: <author fullname="S.V.R Anand" initials="" 
>> surname="S.V.R.Anand">
>> Current:  <author fullname="S.V.R. Anand" initials="S.V.R." 
>> surname="Anand">
>>
>> Original: <author fullname="Malati Hegde" initials="" surname="Malati 
>> Hegde">
>> Current:  <author fullname="Malati Hegde" initials="M." surname="Hegde">
>> -->
>>
>>
>> 6) <!-- [rfced] May this sentence be updated as follows? IoT and M2M 
>> seem redundant here; we suggest choosing one.
>>
>> Current:
>>     The deadline time enables forwarding and scheduling decisions
>>     for time-critical Internet of Things (IoT) machine-to-machine (M2M)
>>     applications that operate within time-synchronized networks that 
>> agree
>>     on the meaning of the time representations used for the deadline
>>     time values.
>>
>> Perhaps (and "Internet of Things" can be added to the keywords):
>>     The deadline time enables forwarding and scheduling decisions
>>     for time-critical, machine-to-machine applications that operate
>>     within time-synchronized networks that agree on the time
>>     representations used for the deadline time values.
>> -->
>>
>>
>> 7) <!-- [rfced]  In the sentence below, would "service guarantees"
>> be a better fit than "delay guarantees"?
>>
>> Current:
>>          Low-power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) are likely to be 
>> deployed for
>>          real-time industrial applications requiring end-to-end
>>          delay guarantees [RFC8578].
>> -->
>>
>>
>> 8) <!-- [rfced]  Could the following sentence be made more concise?
>>
>> Current:
>>     [RFC8138] specifies the 6LoWPAN Routing Header (6LoRH),
>>     compression schemes for RPL (Routing Protocol for Low-Power and
>>     Lossy Networks) routing (source routing) operation [RFC6554],
>>     header compression of RPL packet information [RFC6553], and
>>     IP-in-IP encapsulation.
>>
>> Perhaps:
>>     [RFC8138] specifies the 6LoWPAN Routing Header (6LoRH),
>>     compression schemes for RPL (Routing Protocol for Low-Power and
>>     Lossy Networks) source routing [RFC6554], header compression of
>>     RPL packet information [RFC6553], and IP-in-IP encapsulation.
>> -->
>>
>>
>> 9) <!-- [rfced]  We have expanded "6lo" here, but perhaps "6LoWPAN" 
>> is meant?
>>
>> Current:
>>     The Deadline-6LoRHE can be used in any time-synchronized 6lo
>>     (IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes) network.
>> -->
>>
>>
>> 10) <!-- [rfced]  We have made the following changes in Section 5 to 
>> improve readability. Please let us know if any other changes are 
>> necessary.
>>
>> Original:
>>        *  For example, DTL = 0b0000 means the deadline time in the 
>> 6LoRHE
>>           is 1 hex digit (4 bits) long.  OTL = 0b111 means the
>>           origination time is 7 hex digits (28 bits) long.
>>
>> Current:
>>         For example, DTL = 0b0000 means the DT field in the 6LoRHE
>>         is 1 hex digit (4 bits) long.  OTL = 0b111 means the
>>         OTD field is 7 hex digits (28 bits) long.
>> -->
>>
>>
>> 11) <!-- [rfced] We have formatted equations with superscript and 
>> subscript. Please review.
>>
>> For example (Section 5):
>>        Epoch_Range(DTL) = (2^(4*(DTL+1))
>>
>> Current:
>>        [same in the text file; please see HTML and PDF]
>>
>>
>> For another example (Section 8 of -06):
>>     t_0 = [current_time - (current_time mod (2^(4*(DTL+1))))]
>>
>> Current:
>>     [same in the text file; please see HTML and PDF]
>> -->
>>
>>
>> 12) <!-- [rfced] We have made the following change to improve 
>> readability.
>> Please let us know if other changes are necessary.
>>
>> Original:
>>     A low value of
>>     DTL leads to a small Epoch_Range; if DTL = 0, there will only be 16
>>     RTUs within the Epoch_Range (DTL) = 16^1 (for any time unit TU).
>>
>> Current:
>>     A low value of
>>     DTL leads to a small Epoch_Range; if DTL = 0, there will only be 16
>>     RTUs within the Epoch_Range (i.e., Epoch_Range(DTL) = 16^1) for any
>>     TU.
>> -->
>>
>>
>> 13) <!-- [rfced]  We're having difficulty parsing the following 
>> sentence.
>> Does the suggested text convey the intended meaning?
>>
>> Current:
>>     When deadline-bearing flows are identified on a per-flow basis, 
>> which
>>     may provide attackers with additional information about the data
>>     flows, when compared to networks that do not include per-flow
>>     identification.
>>
>> Perhaps:
>>     The identification of deadline-bearing flows on a per-flow basis
>>     may provide attackers with additional information about the data
>>     flows compared to networks that do not include per-flow
>>     identification.
>>
>> Perhaps:
>>     The identification of deadline-bearing flows on a per-flow basis
>>     may provide attackers with additional information about the data
>>     flows compared to networks that do not include per-flow
>>     identification.
>> -->
>>
>>
>> 14) <!-- [rfced] For [PHY-SPEC], is this specification available from 
>> wi-sun.org? If so, please provide the URL for this reference.
>>
>> Current:
>>     [PHY-SPEC] Wi-SUN Alliance, "Wi-SUN PHY Specification V1.0", March
>>                2016.
>> -->
>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> RFC Editor/jm/ar
>>
>>
>> On May 13, 2021, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote:
>>
>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>
>> Updated 2021/05/13
>>
>> 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://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html>.
>>
>> *  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 with one of the 
>> following, using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CC’ed on this message 
>> need to see your changes:
>>
>> 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 s 
>> tating that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY 
>> ALL’
>> as all the parties CC’ed on this message need to see your approval.
>>
>>
>> Files
>> -----
>>
>> The files are available here:
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9034.xml
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9034.html
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9034.pdf
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9034.txt
>>
>> Diff file of the text:
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9034-diff.html
>>
>> Diff of the XML:
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9034-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/rfc9034.original.v2v3.xml
>>
>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
>> only:
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9034.form.xml
>>
>>
>> Tracking progress
>> -----------------
>>
>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9034
>>
>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>
>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>
>> RFC Editor
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC9034 (draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-05)
>>
>> Title            : Packet Delivery Deadline time in 6LoWPAN Routing 
>> Header
>> Author(s)        : L. Thomas, S. Anamalamudi, S. Anand, M. Hegde, C. 
>> Perkins
>> WG Chair(s)      : Carles Gomez, Shwetha Bhandari
>> Area Director(s) : Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>
>> [ C-DAC is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at:
>> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CDACINDIA & Twitter: @cdacindia ]
>>
>> This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
>> contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the
>> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and 
>> destroy
>> all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use,
>> disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email
>> is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>
>>