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

Hi everyone,

Hitoshi-san, let me ask you this way: what problems do you see with 
updating RFC8609?

Best regards,
Dirk

On 31 Jul 2020, at 14:06, Cenk Gündoğan wrote:

> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> icnrg mailing list
> icnrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg