Re: [icnrg] Adoption of 'Alternative Delta Time Encoding for CCNx Using Compact Floating-Point Arithmetic' (draft-gundogan-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv)

Hitoshi Asaeda <> Fri, 31 July 2020 09:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E3C03A0FFA for <>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 02:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PIdo6knlHTvz for <>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 02:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::632]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FC2D3A0FF8 for <>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 02:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u10so7416835plr.7 for <>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 02:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=rgsH2KX/xxHuRn1jQ0mVKTAkML6Nep8fn5THOi6y3Go=; b=KhJ4EBuhpbRoBRUbhc0Y4s+GV/kc0K9lH7b0A2CPtx1AT2eETPV/mAGkpuxujkzDwJ uIgAuHN+tuP+eMnwgZShGWd2YUIZ2bayDzDw46hdPKB0rTvuYrLKTyjUuA/5J4Dparzr j1TLAFoFiJK3T5gdmVuJ6jKSZjVku2OzlizDA=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=rgsH2KX/xxHuRn1jQ0mVKTAkML6Nep8fn5THOi6y3Go=; b=E3GJdLPwzR+YvjSMMhuS+4o4Tyhz/6sFvB6EuIevzgDiOLfT6HW/JvmxG+q38lYftI eNk/+Zu2IjGNo+bcLLWNAD1dF/mlTihW5AvM391NmVzJmb0jyg7laRNIzMNjA967U3Bw NEhNArWi99fnhc1U361rDws1PaW7w3if0bzVGcM4OrnsiQz3Z4b4xmUjV5TzIM3qcYrY URBotu6ChO8RAy76X+tVu8HhrYpdeTwhEoQAIlbvnvfY34uQAGwz0TxfAV/yqAsiPBDo eRd0YM3TGqmZk9EGDjBxQrHPt09IYUMkorvTXdTqzjBBwEJ3eY85eT+ZbjchkTZhbpaw VDOQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531BraV4vbk6MpJlw5u/WiDyJrkWSJdTruKFvgxQbTTTwqt8e5l8 /tjPxZEqc22dskPPrqNuWvVXsx4A1Ak=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxmQ8eFAExa+KWT/NgcF1pvfN7oJs+A/V6YGETpgUrMiKSvQ0Oj6HmNkTJXtnbLVekOonXymA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ff03:: with SMTP id f3mr2942489plj.302.1596189063490; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 02:51:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id p13sm6414459pgs.39.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 31 Jul 2020 02:51:03 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
From: Hitoshi Asaeda <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 18:51:00 +0900
Cc: ICNRG <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Dirk Kutscher <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [icnrg] Adoption of 'Alternative Delta Time Encoding for CCNx Using Compact Floating-Point Arithmetic' (draft-gundogan-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Information-Centric Networking research group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 09:51:08 -0000


I don't deny the proposal itself but have a concern about the intention; "update" RFC8609.

Why does this draft update RFC8609? Why can't we keep RFC8609 as is and propose the new type values for this proposal as the addition?
The time TLV proposed in this document can coexist with RFC8609 if you use the new type values. Why does this need to replace the time TLV defined in 8609? Is there any errata reported for the time TLV defined in 8609?

My comment is that it is better to discuss this document without an intention of updating RFC8609.



> On Jul 29, 2020, at 21:39, Dirk Kutscher <> wrote:
> This draft ( is intended as an update to RFC 8609 (CCNx Messages in TLV Format).
> The authors have just submitted an update that addresses previously made technical comments.
> We believe that it would be appropriate to give change control to the Research Group, so the chairs would like to solicit statements indicating support for adoption or concerns against it from people who are 1) not co-authors and 2) have read the latest version.
> In case there are questions that you would like to discuss interactively, we should be able to make some time for that on the Monday Interim meeting -- let us know.
> Thanks and best regards,
> Chairs
> _______________________________________________
> icnrg mailing list