Re: [icnrg] IRTF Chair review of draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv-01

"David R. Oran" <daveoran@orandom.net> Thu, 08 December 2022 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <daveoran@orandom.net>
X-Original-To: icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 820D3C14F733; Thu, 8 Dec 2022 08:47:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=crystalorb.net header.b=MVKDBP5J; dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=crystalorb.net header.b=ZvvmithT
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HcgKjV2wK_ud; Thu, 8 Dec 2022 08:47:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from crystalorb.net (omega.crystalorb.net [IPv6:2600:3c01:e000:42e::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D1E9C14F75F; Thu, 8 Dec 2022 08:47:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=crystalorb.net; s=mail; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:From: Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To: References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post: List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=vxjFTq3s1Z0nWPNfx1i5xswnF2BH0GtYg6yuigPPLy0=; b=M VKDBP5JeQbOOdCXpuHZETBZCW2sCa2uOE2pfcbmoepmlgxfm1jrFG9jtdUBsmy+p7CMBi4RHBnEfF UP7O2ZncxTvQRru+hjhtMzJBStTFVkxJESW38c8onLnWi5z2H+FsAtMDhHYKtCAK6JkX6m00gp1p9 oLP2Buqowggw42Gc=;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=crystalorb.net; s=omegamail; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:From: Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To: References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post: List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=vxjFTq3s1Z0nWPNfx1i5xswnF2BH0GtYg6yuigPPLy0=; b=Z vvmithTZHgYV9W5H520wTOhy6WK+UootsSZoejgxVS2OFzI6pAWSjRymorSUvhGpFRSdnCIAzJZJm GLqynhAw==;
Received: from [2601:184:407f:80cf:1988:5c3e:8f6c:5e6d] (helo=[192.168.15.242]) by crystalorb.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <daveoran@orandom.net>) id 1p3K1n-00GvXV-KP; Thu, 08 Dec 2022 08:45:43 -0800
From: "David R. Oran" <daveoran@orandom.net>
To: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
Cc: draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv@ietf.org, icnrg-chairs@ietf.org, ICNRG <icnrg@irtf.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2022 11:47:35 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.14r5930)
Message-ID: <2EB2137C-1C21-4BC5-BA3E-D6AD399D0244@orandom.net>
In-Reply-To: <68FDE7B4-B03E-4540-BA57-60BA8D361D93@csperkins.org>
References: <68FDE7B4-B03E-4540-BA57-60BA8D361D93@csperkins.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_E32D7636-B330-4E5B-B12F-BE712C3E34AD_="
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2601:184:407f:80cf:1988:5c3e:8f6c:5e6d
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: daveoran@orandom.net
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on crystalorb.net); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/icnrg/BJeMwPvmBFOqPG3D2vqELWYay4A>
Subject: Re: [icnrg] IRTF Chair review of draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv-01
X-BeenThere: icnrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Information-Centric Networking research group discussion list <icnrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/icnrg>, <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/icnrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:icnrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg>, <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2022 16:47:44 -0000

On 6 Dec 2022, at 18:02, Colin Perkins wrote:

> The ICNRG chairs have requested that draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv-01 
> be published as an RFC on the IRTF stream. The IRTF publication 
> process is described in RFC 5743, and comprises a review by the IRSG 
> to ensure technical and editorial quality, followed by a check by the 
> IESG to ensure the work does not conflict with IETF standards 
> activities.
>
> As IRTF Chair, I perform an initial review of all drafts submitted for 
> publication on the IRTF stream before sending them for detailed review 
> by the IRSG. This note provides my review comments, for discussion.
>
> Authors, please can you also respond to this message to confirm that 
> all necessary IPR disclosures, as described on 
> https://irtf.org/policies/ipr, have been made?
>
None from me.

> Result: Almost ready
>
> RFC 5743 compliance: The draft follows the guidelines in RFC 5743
>
>
> Comments:
>
> * The IANA will likely want explicit instructions for what changes 
> should be made, and to what registries. The IANA Considerations 
> section may need to be expanded.
>
Right. I think we can come up with explicit instructions now that 
earlier conversations on how to best encode things have been settled.

> * Should the CCNx RFCs be normative references?
>
Yes.

> * The draft is marked as Experimental, but does not say what 
> experiment is being conducted. Is the experiment around the utility of 
> this compact time encoding, or is it part of a larger experimental 
> deployment of CCNx, or is it something else? How does this draft help 
> advance that experiment? How is success to be determined?
>
There’s not much to say here, as this proposed encoding change was in 
fact a result of earlier experimentation with CCNx on 
bandwidth-constrained networks. So this is actually “backward 
looking” as opposed to “forward looking” and therefore is a 
modification/enhancement to CCNx based on prior experiments. Should we 
just say this or is there more to say about further experimentation 
based on the new TLV proposed here?


> Regards,
> Colin
>
>
> -- 
> Colin Perkins
> https://csperkins.org/
> _______________________________________________
> icnrg mailing list
> icnrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg
DaveO