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

[Erik Kline <[e-mail]>]

Jean,

Please record my approval for this document.

Thanks for your patience,
-Erik

On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 2:19 PM Erik Kline <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thanks Jean.
>
> This does seem like a sizable chunk of new text.
>
> I've put a few thoughts/questions to the 6lo chairs in a separate thread.
>
> Hopefully I'll have an answer for you shortly.
>
> Thanks again,
> -Erik
>
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 6:48 AM Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Lijo and *Erik,
>>
>> *Erik, please review the new text and let us know if you approve:
>>
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9034-auth48rfcdiff.html
>>
>> Lijo, thank you for the updated draft. We have incorporated the changes:
>>
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9034-lastrfcdiff.html
>>
>>    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 have also noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:
>>
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9034
>>
>> Thank you!
>> RFC Editor/jm
>> On 5/21/21 2:03 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>
>>    Hello  Jean,
>>
>>    We have updated the suggestions mentioned in the below email and the
>> latest 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]> <[e-mail]>
>> *Sent:* 20 May 2021 01:26
>> *To:* Lijo Thomas <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>; 'Erik Kline'
>> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc:* 'Charlie Perkins' <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>;
>> 'RFC Errata System' <[e-mail]>
>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; 'S.V.R.Anand'
>> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>; 'Malati Hegde'
>> <[e-mail]> <[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]> <[e-mail]>
>> *Sent:* 18 May 2021 12:11
>> *To:* Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc:* Charlie Perkins <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>;
>> Lijo Thomas <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>; RFC Errata System
>> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>;
>> [e-mail]; S.V.R.Anand <[e-mail]>
>> <[e-mail]>; Malati Hegde <[e-mail]>
>> <[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
>>
>>
>> [image: 150th Anniversary Mahatma Gandhi]
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> [ 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
>>
>> [image: 150th Anniversary Mahatma Gandhi]
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> [ 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.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>