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

Cenk Gündoğan <mail+ietf@gundogan.net> Fri, 31 July 2020 12:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mail+ietf@gundogan.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 605F63A130D for <icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 05:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (bad RSA signature)" header.d=gundogan.net
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 bZEDDN1p6h6J for <icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 05:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.localdomain (trantor.gundogan.net [37.120.167.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 588143A130B for <icnrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 05:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [141.22.28.164]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7515B3544F for <icnrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 13:52:11 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gundogan.net; s=201712; t=1596196331; bh=JRapcsO56pQBj6Jm2mMpcZd/dYxhjFxP+pUsGIp566s=; h=References:From:To:Subject:In-reply-to:Date:From; b=jaIS1bPfq4HM2d6CXA/WEE3VRHysI+NCUvpSsa1QrTJHqjlCe9C38AtNUN79yf6s/ YRDC0NFHW3lj2EY4NXn3deJy2nLe7rR9ggSdZT8jf6ClrpNUSlJvWTywxPY2IGM1hY OWRJOQtaYCogoDrb9fGGX+J7HUz4hIYP6vsORp4/FIhcO8HHUUHgxcpnGJNCV/wjIB Wg5LEbQ/cW3GKlVaDk/KMf+7O9IVPRZ+jpfH6AjIKpZIdkjJdsAyXvdVSY4h0Chzkv 0QtdBCqogegjJd5Y6vbX1n1NueWRSA7XzdI4H0WQ8kv2NL1ILBLDfKKuwLeeC+jJBj 2vXMA1Q0o7f5Q==
References: <68D3AAD3-59E1-43AE-8722-06776AED4607@dkutscher.net> <E979BEAD-A9D1-484B-A46F-87069859F3B6@ieee.org>
User-agent: mu4e 1.4.12; emacs 26.3
From: Cenk =?utf-8?B?R8O8bmRvxJ9hbg==?= <mail+ietf@gundogan.net>
To: icnrg@irtf.org
In-reply-to: <E979BEAD-A9D1-484B-A46F-87069859F3B6@ieee.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:06:13 +0200
Message-ID: <874kpnj3d6.fsf@gundogan.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/icnrg/bUDAFtk8MCtQbPEiUZdslmKN8nk>
Subject: Re: [icnrg] Adoption of 'Alternative Delta Time Encoding for CCNx Using Compact Floating-Point Arithmetic' (draft-gundogan-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv)
X-BeenThere: icnrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 12:06:19 -0000

Hello Hitoshi,

thank you for your feedback, my comments follow further down inline.

On Fri, Jul 31 2020 at 11:51 +0200, Hitoshi Asaeda wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 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?

the current version of this document describes a few alternatives on how
to integrate the compressed time TLV into CCNx. One alternative proposes
to use the Length (L) field of the InterestLifetime TLV to identify the
included encoding (normal time (L>1) vs. compressed time (L==1)
representation). This would require a change in RFC8609 (Section 3.4.1
[1]).

Another alternative might update the message ABNF in Section 2.1 [2] of
RFC8569 to add a new top-level TLV for the compressed InterestLifeTime.

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8609#section-3.4.1
[2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8569#section-2.1

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

All proposed integration alternatives display advantages and
disadvantages. Getting group feedback on this particular topic is quite
valuable for the progression of this work. Thanks! We could also
reiterate over the existing integration ideas again (on the list?) in
order to stimulate new ideas and solutions (comparable to a draft
presentation?).

Best,
Cenk

>
> Regards,
>
> Hitoshi
>
>
>> On Jul 29, 2020, at 21:39, Dirk Kutscher <ietf@dkutscher.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi ICNRG,
>> 
>> This draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gundogan-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv/) 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
>> icnrg@irtf.org
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg
>
> _______________________________________________
> icnrg mailing list
> icnrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg

--
Cenk Gündoğan

Hamburg University of Applied Sciences
Dept. of Computer Science / Internet Technologies Group
Berliner Tor 7, 20099 Hamburg, Germany
Fon: +49 40 42875 - 8426
Mail: cenk.guendogan@haw-hamburg.de
Web: https://www.inet.haw-hamburg.de/