Re: [Gen-art] [6lo] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-03

"Carles Gomez Montenegro" <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu> Fri, 05 April 2019 14:43 UTC

Return-Path: <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B993120453; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 07:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HK9DJptCcwkm; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 07:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dash.upc.es (dash.upc.es [147.83.2.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 271BD1200EF; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 07:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from entelserver.upc.edu (entelserver.upc.es [147.83.39.4]) by dash.upc.es (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id x35EhCpv041468; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 16:43:13 +0200
Received: from webmail.entel.upc.edu (webmail.entel.upc.edu [147.83.39.6]) by entelserver.upc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F25DD1D53C1; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 16:43:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from 131.111.5.141 by webmail.entel.upc.edu with HTTP; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 16:43:12 +0200
Message-ID: <24c8b88d7982475d08b287ba68bc3be4.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <dcfc1e09-7ecd-b9a4-1c91-d8031aebe4b5@earthlink.net>
References: <87zhqxojys.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <dcfc1e09-7ecd-b9a4-1c91-d8031aebe4b5@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 16:43:12 +0200
From: "Carles Gomez Montenegro" <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>
To: "Dale R. Worley" <worley@ariadne.com>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time.all@ietf.org, "Charlie Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21-1.fc14
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.100.2 at dash
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: IP, sender and recipient auto-whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.3.9 (dash.upc.es [147.83.2.50]); Fri, 05 Apr 2019 16:43:13 +0200 (CEST)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/BrIk6ptC54JHFZXKjYvdEfanLq8>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [6lo] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-03
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2019 14:43:32 -0000

Dear Dale,

Thanks for reviewing draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-03.

Authors of draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time recently produced revision -04 of
the draft, based on a number of comments received, including yours:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time/

Do you think -04 satisfies your previous concerns?

Thanks,

Shwetha and Carles (6lo co-chairs)



> Hello Dale,
>
> I made some brief follow-up to your comments inline below.  I think we
> are in agreement about what needs to be done.
>
> On 2/14/2019 6:37 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
>> Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>; writes:
>>> I'm not sure about this because even in 6TiSCH networks, one could
>>> imagine using NTP-based time representations.  Besides that, we'd
>>> really
>>> like to avoid restricting the use of the Deadline-6LoRHE to only
>>> 6TiSCH.
>> I agree that one could imagine any number of schemes, and in the long
>> run, broad use of Deadline-6LoRHE is desirable.  But that doesn't change
>> the fact that while the draft purports to define the meaning of three
>> values of the TU field, for two of those values, the draft doesn't
>> specify what zero-point is being used for the time scale, and so
>> implementations using those values cannot ensure interoperation.
>>
>> Now if what you really mean is "NTP time scale in microseconds" and "NTP
>> time scale in seconds", those *are* definitions.  But that's not what
>> the
>> draft says.
>
>
> We have revamped the way of representing the deadline time and optional
> origination time, and I think it will resolve your comments here.  In a
> nutshell, we are following the recommendations in
> draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps.
>
>
>> ...
>>> We will rework the time representation and show a proposed new format
>>> soon.  I agree that, if both values are present, one should be a delta
>>> from the other.
>> The way you write that suggests that either or both of the times can be
>> present.  But the deadline time is not optional.  So if the origination
>> time is present, both times are present.
>
>
> Agreed, and the new revision will make this clear as well.
>
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lo mailing list
> 6lo@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
>