[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-03

Dan Frost <frost@mm.st> Mon, 07 January 2019 14:24 UTC

Return-Path: <frost@mm.st>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30401130EA7; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 06:24:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mm.st header.b=v15OAfkE; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=a5QK6X0K
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jFToMK-04ILQ; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 06:24:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEC4B1277CC; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 06:24:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0D0B22EFE; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 09:24:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web3 ([]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 07 Jan 2019 09:24:34 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mm.st; h= message-id:from:to:cc:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:subject:date; s=fm2; bh=uyiuWVmNhzhb7U37znKiyHLrqs L3ZFW2m7tYZo0TuAU=; b=v15OAfkE7unJwQBH4VIrfg3mEACSL+mnUBb1GSwk9V zNpvYbFqP/DPuuha4SnAcPPp9saJd73OExlP/krHzVpIv34Q6X/3xVJh/ZoCCS5g kJNKLrwPS9zNS/hgJWfWfkIsxm9raYJX4U3/DUEqqCbnytR7YVNWCrXXbTmShAze 8dF/Ioc1u7aCc1pjQh/ooMrx5dBZSWmhx3AokUuMNHl7SJVDOw9llc3dYeV6CGRG TiRANgTdB16vt/VoueCDvTGemCdTPJ/esnZYjxXk+hyGs6OH+wKtka6zIwXPSykp nZMEpcdr//FlVJcIP5IGeKQVhK2RF9784pbUgCgb6y1Q==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=uyiuWV mNhzhb7U37znKiyHLrqsL3ZFW2m7tYZo0TuAU=; b=a5QK6X0KB0fDM4oLJfV1cw xDtVtvlnKobv9zFcA1gIQr10T35P28vWz1QC1G0+NEyT9Jj57pP2vBASBF3omirP v7rf4oJbudHR4EC0yL6hZcECBWrVkBYblPSEInrofFD5/XHeeGDU0kPpXuhaKSc+ 45Qu3tlnXoqEDryPJcVXkqfmJB9YSjOvAO8vis4YpL+U9rdTOzlBfvgANMYIw7DH Y+/HmSOoeX/4Ud4qhnSmRBFK5RY7Z7m8mFE3MNGuYUZROatbZtDtrIaOjPVMhs0R zJ0i+QC29mygIVpFqH+h/LOPnSCkuHbcNi+MSvgCgArRy0LZGCpUu3m8EqWaj3mw ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:ImEzXA6e5z4s9-RXdyrFZ5g-r2Ji-u42Fp6CHhLvPHxy1uiCoS_1KA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtledrvdejgdeivdculddtuddrgedtkedrtddtmd cutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfhuthen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefkhffvggfgtgfoufffsehtqhertd ertdejnecuhfhrohhmpeffrghnucfhrhhoshhtuceofhhrohhsthesmhhmrdhstheqnecu ffhomhgrihhnpehivghtfhdrohhrghenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepfhhroh hsthesmhhmrdhsthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:ImEzXElpo2C3kvXinVFbDJnPfm3HeAPOFrrfjupcpx5kcdPs_esj4Q> <xmx:ImEzXLRNm4aAvoWpBQhflOeHsGNd6t1XB3GTbsa53v0NF_Ry3W354A> <xmx:ImEzXLnZpuMEVe9iWZxnJ9x-79RHSbjuMAY4izizJ_OSxtRfYTqaRA> <xmx:ImEzXLx_VqU3_pli7d9k_7MN_mFZz442lP9ov8WH4EbE70xi6wi-ww>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id 37E109E586; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 09:24:34 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1546871074.3699932.1627604240.346EB1B6@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Dan Frost <frost@mm.st>
To: rtg-ads@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time.all@ietf.org, rtg-dir@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-fc1a05a6
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 14:24:34 +0000
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/VYEnW0YogDgBPCW0FrsyYGaQkMI>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-03
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 14:24:38 -0000


I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-03
Reviewer: Dan Frost
Review Date: 2019-01-07
Intended Status: Standards Track


I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication. 


This draft specifies a mechanism for including packet delivery deadline times, in the form of an elective 6LoWPAN routing header, for use in low-power and lossy networks with real-time requirements for end-to-end delay. Routers can use packet deadline times to make informed scheduling decisions or discard overdue packets. The timing metadata can also be useful for performance monitoring and diagnostics.

The draft is, for the most part, clear, and the writing quality is good.

Major Issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

The main issue I see with the spec is the way timestamp formats are specified with the TU (time units) field. The possible values for this field include "seconds" and "microseconds". This is unusual, particularly in combination with the EXP field, which leads to some time values having multiple representations. And when representing absolute timestamps, we'd usually use well-known formats like NTP or IEEE 1588. The draft probably needs to rework the timestamp representation options along these lines, including specifying a single default format for interoperability (we did this in RFC 6374, for example). An important consideration here is the typical capabilities of the kinds of devices expected to implement this spec; many devices only have good support for one standard timestamp format. Industrial devices, a specfiic target of this spec, usually expect IEEE 1588.

Making the Origination Time non-optional and specifying the Deadline Time as a delta could also be considered.

Is the D flag (must drop if deadline exceeded) really necessary? Should the semantics not just be to drop the overdue packet if there's congestion, and forward it otherwise?


Section 4: s/Whenever the packets crosses into a network/Whenever a packet crosses into a network/