Re: [Ntp] [6lo] Last Call: <draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-03.txt> (Packet Delivery Deadline time in 6LoWPAN Routing Header) to Proposed Standard

"Lijo Thomas" <lijo@cdac.in> Thu, 03 January 2019 12:05 UTC

Return-Path: <lijo@cdac.in>
X-Original-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F8EB130E0E; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 04:05:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 PktIRR6BBFyy; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 04:05:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailsender.cdac.in (mailsender.cdac.in [196.1.113.117]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D76F130DFE; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 04:05:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ims.pune.cdac.in (ims.pune.cdac.in [10.208.1.15]) by mailsender.cdac.in (8.14.2/8.13.8) with ESMTP id x03C4bYL022158 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 3 Jan 2019 17:34:43 +0530
Received: from mailgw.pune.cdac.in ([10.208.1.4]) by ims.pune.cdac.in (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x03C4NYg015477; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 17:34:24 +0530
X-AuthUser: lijo
Received: from LijoPC (lijo_new_pc.tvm.cdac.in [10.176.10.234]) (authenticated bits=0) by mailgw.pune.cdac.in (8.14.2/8.13.8) with ESMTP id x03C4K7D031672 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 3 Jan 2019 17:34:22 +0530
From: Lijo Thomas <lijo@cdac.in>
To: 'Tal Mizrahi' <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time@ietf.org, 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, 'Samita Chakrabarti' <samitac.ietf@gmail.com>, ntp@ietf.org, 6lo@ietf.org, ntp-chairs@ietf.org, suresh@kaloom.com, 'IETF-Announce' <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
References: <154444480037.17333.5127536482994262799.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABUE3XnQSi9rJnN2pxp2ZmmMAF4-aTgZ3eFeuWgj7uDWkZDoHw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABUE3XnQSi9rJnN2pxp2ZmmMAF4-aTgZ3eFeuWgj7uDWkZDoHw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 17:38:52 +0530
Message-ID: <006c01d4a35d$196ce540$4c46afc0$@cdac.in>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_006D_01D4A38B.33252140"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQOZzN+r5BfsyPm7807yELb4NuivyQHhrJ9MogQSeLA=
Content-Language: en-in
X-CDAC-PUNE-MailScanner-ID: x03C4NYg015477
X-CDAC-PUNE-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-CDAC-PUNE-MailScanner-MCPCheck-IMS: MCP-Clean, MCP-Checker (score=0, required 1)
X-CDAC-PUNE-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-1.498, required 6, autolearn=disabled, ALL_TRUSTED -1.00, BAYES_05 -0.50, HTML_MESSAGE 0.00, URIBL_BLOCKED 0.00), not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-2.909, required 6, autolearn=disabled, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, BAYES_05 -1.11, HTML_MESSAGE 0.00)
X-CDAC-PUNE-MailScanner-Information: Please contact npsfhelp@cdac.in/mailadmin@cdac.in for more information
X-MailScanner-ID: x03C4bYL022158
X-CDAC-PUNE-MailScanner-From: lijo@cdac.in
X-CDAC-MailScanner-Spam-Status: No
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/Ilvdo4XD-isePIdOAtB8NPBOrPU>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 06:51:26 -0800
Subject: Re: [Ntp] [6lo] Last Call: <draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-03.txt> (Packet Delivery Deadline time in 6LoWPAN Routing Header) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ntp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ntp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ntp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 12:05:25 -0000

Hi Tal,

Thanks for your comments.

The scope of our deadline-time draft is confined to a resource constrained 6lo network and hence specifies the DT/OT time representation that is suited for such networks.

The draft specifies an encoding method for expressing the deadline time of a packet for its transmission over a resource constrained 6lo network. So really, the interpretation of Time Unit is scoped to the underlying network technology and the definition(s) of time it provides as specified by the underlying network. So we feel the <draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-05> won’t be applicable to our case.

For providing more clarity as indicated by Suresh Krishnan too, we will add appropriate text in the next revision.

 

Happy to receive further comments if any;


Thanks & Regards,

Lijo Thomas 

 <https://www.codetwo.com/> 

 

From: 6lo <6lo-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Tal Mizrahi
Sent: 23 December 2018 14:20
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time@ietf.org; 6lo-chairs@ietf.org; Samita Chakrabarti <samitac.ietf@gmail.com>; ntp@ietf.org; 6lo@ietf.org; ntp-chairs@ietf.org; suresh@kaloom.com; IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Last Call: <draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-03.txt> (Packet Delivery Deadline time in 6LoWPAN Routing Header) to Proposed Standard

 

Hi,

 

I am not a 6lo native, but I reviewed the draft specifically from a timestamp formatting perspective.

In the NTP working group we currently have a draft in WGLC that presents guidelines for defining timestamp formats.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-05

 

I believe that the definitions of the timestamps (DT and OT) in draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time should be more detailed. For example, aspects about the epoch and the potential effect of leap seconds are currently not described in the current draft. 

I would suggest to follow the timestamp specification template of Section 3 in draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-05.

 

Thanks,

Tal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 2:27 PM The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org <mailto:iesg-secretary@ietf.org> > wrote:


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 over Networks of
Resource-constrained Nodes WG (6lo) to consider the following document: -
'Packet Delivery Deadline time in 6LoWPAN Routing Header'
  <draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-03.txt> as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>  mailing lists by 2018-12-24. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org <mailto:iesg@ietf.org>  instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


   This document specifies a new type for the 6LoWPAN routing header
   containing the delivery deadline time for data packets.  The deadline
   time enables forwarding and scheduling decisions for time critical
   IoT M2M applications that need deterministic delay guarantees over
   constrained networks and operate within time-synchronized networks.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information: 
    draft-ietf-6tisch-terminology: Terms Used in IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e (None - IETF stream)





------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ C-DAC is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CDACINDIA & Twitter: @cdacindia ]

This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email
is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------