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

[Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]>]

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: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 13 May 2021 23:49
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> 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, [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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [ 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.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>