Re: [Pals] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-04: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

Okey dokey.

Thanks, works for me.

W

On Thu, May 11, 2017, 2:52 AM Luca Martini <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Warren,
> Thanks for the comment, I updated the document to remove all the extra |
> as you mention.
> To answer your question: We wanted an example algorithm that would work
> in the document.
>
> Luca
>
> On 04/10/17 13:16, Warren Kumari wrote:
> > Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-04: No Objection
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I agree with Benoit re: Jürgen's review.
> >
> > I was also quite confused by:
> > " In order to get a locally unique session ID, the recommended choice is
> > to perform a CRC-16 giving as input the following data
> >        |Y|Y|M|M|D|D|H|H|M|M|S|S|L|L|L|
> >
> >        Where:  YY: are the decimal two last digit of the current year
> >        MM: are the decimal two digit of the current month DD: are the
> >        decimal two digit of the current day HHMMSSLLL: are the decimal
> >        digits of the current time expressed in (hour, minutes, seconds,
> >        milliseconds) ... Any other method to
> >        generate a locally unique session ID is also acceptable."
> >
> > Is the pipe character intended to mean concatenation? Or is it just for
> > formatting?
> > If the former, why isn't this "YY|MM|DD|HHMMSSLLL" (or
> > "YY|MM|DD|HH|MM|SS|LLL")?
> > Is this just CRC-16 (170410124223001)? An example would help...
> > Actually, this says that it is a "locally unique session ID" and that any
> > other method is also acceptable, so why is any algorithm specified?
> >
> >
>
>