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

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

    Hello  Jean,
   We have updated the suggestions mentioned in the below email and thelatest draft is attached herewith.    I have some issue with my official email ID, hence using my personal ID.

   Kindly review and you may proceed with this update.

   Please get back if you have further clarifications if any.

   Thanks for the understanding and support !!!

   Thanks & Regards,

   Lijo Thomas 

  

From: Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 20 May 2021 01:26
To: Lijo Thomas <[e-mail]>; 'Erik Kline' <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Charlie Perkins' <[e-mail]>; 'RFC Errata System' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; 'S.V.R.Anand' <[e-mail]>; 'Malati Hegde' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [C310] [AD] Re: AUTH48 [JM]: RFC 9034 <draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-05.txt> NOW AVAILABLE

  

Lijo,

Thank you for the updated XML file. We have incorporated the updates and have made some edits, which include:
   
   - Making "current time" lowercase to match the rest of the document.
   - Replacing Deadline Time and Origination Time with their acronyms DT and OT.
   - Placing the equation marked with (***) on its own line and creating hyperlinks to it. 
   - Replacing the asterisks used to emphasize certain words with <em> elements. This italicizes the words in HTML and PDF, and uses underscores to highlight the words in TXT. 

Please let us know if other changes are necessary:

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9034-lastrfcdiff.html (changes in text)
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9034-xmllastrfcdiff.html (changes in 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

We also have the following questions:

1) The following sentence seems to be inconsistent in its terminology ("is required" versus "allow"):

Current:
   In order to allow fine-grained control over the setting of the
   deadline time, it is required to allow fractional seconds to be used
   in the fields for DT and OTD.  

Perhaps:
   In order to provide fine-grained control over the setting of the
   deadline time, fractional seconds are REQUIRED to be used
   in the fields for DT and OTD.

Or perhaps:
   In order to allow fine-grained control over the setting of the
   deadline time, the fields for DT and OTD use fractional seconds.
 
2) May we replace "Orig_Node" (4 instances) with "originating node" to improve readability? 

Best regards,

RFC Editor/jm

On 5/19/21 12:37 AM, Lijo Thomas wrote:


Dear Erik,

 

Thanks for pointing out that earlier discussion , which we have missed out in the process. It was a critical piece of work which needs to be in our draft. 

 

Now in the current attached version (rfc9034-Final.xml), we have merged  the changes as per the  below link, which includes the modular arithmetic fixes.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/MPf1zwq5KtY_tBspdH0JEW0yHPs/

 

Request you to consider this version, as the final update from the authors. Kindly review.

 

Please get back for further clarifications if any.

 

@ Jean – Treat this email as  an approval from my end. And many thanks for your kind understanding.

 

Thanks to all for your patience and support !!

 

  Thanks & Regards,

  Lijo Thomas 

 

From: Erik Kline <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 18 May 2021 12:11
To: Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]>
Cc: Charlie Perkins <[e-mail]>; Lijo Thomas <[e-mail]>; RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; S.V.R.Anand <[e-mail]>; Malati Hegde <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [C310] [AD] Re: AUTH48 [JM]: RFC 9034 <draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-05.txt> NOW AVAILABLE

 

Specifically, I'm wondering if we can give quick consideration to the topics here before final publication:

 

    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/MPf1zwq5KtY_tBspdH0JEW0yHPs/

 

On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 8:04 PM Erik Kline <[e-mail]> wrote:


Actually, can I put things on pause until inclusion of some modular arithmetic fixes are merged (if they haven't been already)?

 

On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 8:01 PM Erik Kline <[e-mail]> wrote:


I've had a look over https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9034-diff.html and everything LGTM.

 

Thanks,

-ek






------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
[ 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. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 



 For assimilation and dissemination of knowledge, visit cakes.cdac.in



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------