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

[Erik Kline <[e-mail]>]

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.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>