Re: [icnrg] Directions on CCNx TimeTLVs: draft-gundogan-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv

Hi Marc,

many thanks for the feedback and yes, I think we are in pretty close 
agreement. We will work on the draft and resubmit soonish.

Best,
  Thomas

On 20/11/2019 14:25, Mosko, Marc <mmosko@parc.com> wrote:
> Thomas,
> 
> I think having more compact encodings is great!  Here's a few comments on draft-gundogan-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv-00.
> 
> 1) The caption of Fig 3 cites RFC 4574.  Is that correct?  It's also not in the references section.
> 
> 2) RFC 5497 is not definitive in the representation of 1 or 2 byte floats, as C must be specified.  In your draft, it would be good to have a section that completely spells out how to go from a timestamp to/from mini/half floats.
> 
> 3) I agree that playing with the signature time might have unintended security consequences.  The signature time might also be unrelated to other time fields in the packet as it might be generated independently of the content itself, so using it as a time base is not a good idea either.
> 
> 4) If the RCT becomes relative, then a cache should decrement it.  I'm not a big fan for using relative times here, but it could be done.  I had written up an idea on allowing relative times as an alternative to absolute times in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mosko-icnrg-cachecontrol-00.
> 
> 5) I think fractions of a second are not important for fields like interest lifetime or RCT, so the exponent does not need to support negatives.  Removing a sign bit and keeping the exponent positive with a normalized form mantissa would have a fairly large range, at least for the 8-bit (a 0.4.4.-0 minifloat).  The 16-bit should keep all the bells and whistles as it has space, and you'd likely use IEEE half precision floats anyway?
> 
> Marc
> 
> 
> On 11/19/19, 8:12 PM, "icnrg on behalf of Thomas C. Schmidt" <icnrg-bounces@irtf.org on behalf of t.schmidt@haw-hamburg.de> wrote:
> 
>      Folks,
>      
>      following up on our presentation of draft-gundogan-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv:
>      
>      This proposes to replace time deltas in CCNx by logarithmic encodings
>      and (maybe) some absolute timer values by deltas w.r.t. the signature time.
>      
>      We solicit feedback: Do you agree on going this way, or do you suspect
>      this to be harmful?
>      
>      Best,
>        Thomas
>      --
>      
>      Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
>      ° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences                  Berliner Tor 7 °
>      ° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group   20099 Hamburg, Germany °
>      ° http://inet.haw-hamburg.de/members/schmidt      Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 °
>      
>      _______________________________________________
>      icnrg mailing list
>      icnrg@irtf.org
>      https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg
>      
> 

-- 

Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences                  Berliner Tor 7 °
° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group   20099 Hamburg, Germany °
° http://inet.haw-hamburg.de/members/schmidt      Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 °