Re: [icnrg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gundogan-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv-01.txt

["Mosko, Marc <[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]>]

I think this draft is very clear and easy to follow.  The only addition I would make is to include an appendix with a few test vectors, say 0, a subnormal, and a normal or two.  Or put them in the main text as examples.

One question to consider is, would there be more possible time encodings beyond this?  Do we need a way to clearly distinguish between time encodings for fields, or is inferring the encoding based on the length acceptable?  I would probably rule out a nested encoding, as that is counter-productive when trying to introduce a 1 byte scheme. 

Marc

On 3/9/20, 12:03 PM, "icnrg on behalf of Cenk Gündoğan" <[e-mail] on behalf of mail=2Bietf=[e-mail]> wrote:

    Dear ICNRG,
    
    we updated our CCNx Time TLV draft to include the following changes:
    
    * we removed the previously included discussion on using a time base TLV
      for (absolute) RecommendedCacheTime (RCT) TLVs in content objects. The
      current approach interprets RCT as absolute (normal behavior) for UTC
      timestamps (8 octets), and as relative for a compact timestamp (1
      octet).
    
    * we added an explicit configuration for exponent, mantissa, and bias to
      Section 4. That configuration yields a milli second resolution for
      lower time values and can also (with low resolution) reaches values
      has high as ~4 years.
    
    * we added a few alternatives to section 5 (CCNx protocol integration)
      to provide more material for discussions. This topic needs to converge
      to a distinct solution, though.
    
    As always, any feedback is highly appreciated.
    
    Cheers,
    Cenk
    
    On Mon, Mar 09 2020 at 19:42 +0100, [e-mail] wrote:
    
    > A new version of I-D, draft-gundogan-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv-01.txt
    > has been successfully submitted by Cenk Gundogan and posted to the
    > IETF repository.
    >
    > Name:		draft-gundogan-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv
    > Revision:	01
    > Title:		An Alternative Delta Time encoding for CCNx using Interval Time from RFC5497
    > Document date:	2020-03-09
    > Group:		Individual Submission
    > Pages:		8
    > URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gundogan-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv-01.txt
    > Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gundogan-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv/
    > Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gundogan-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv-01
    > Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gundogan-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv
    > Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-gundogan-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv-01
    >
    > Abstract:
    >    CCNx utilizes Delta Time for a number of functions.  When using CCNx
    >    in environments with constrained nodes and/or bandwidth constrained
    >    networks, it is valuable to have a compressed representation of delta
    >    time.  In order to do so, either accuracy or dynamic range has to be
    >    sacrificed.  Since the current uses of delta time do not require both
    >    simultaneously, one can consider a logarithmic encoding such as that
    >    specified in RFC5497.  This document updates _CCNx messages in TLV
    >    Format_ (RFC8609) to specify this alternative encoding.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
    > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
    >
    > The IETF Secretariat
    
    
    --
    Cenk Gündoğan
    
    Hamburg University of Applied Sciences
    Dept. of Computer Science / Internet Technologies Group
    Berliner Tor 7, 20099 Hamburg, Germany
    Fon: [phone] - 8426
    Mail: [e-mail]
    Web: https://www.inet.haw-hamburg.de/