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

[[e-mail]]

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, [e-mail] 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