Hello Lijo, Thank you so much for your detailed comments. I appreciate it very much. I am happy with your response, I just have one last clarification point, see below:
> On Jul 24, 2018, at 09:38, Lijo Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Georgios, > > Thanks for your valuable suggestions and we really appreciate for taking your > valuable time for the review . > > Please find our comments inline below marked as (*** [LT]) > > We will be happy to receive your further inputs !!! > > > Thanks & Regards, <> > Lijo Thomas > > > From: <> 6lo [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] On > Behalf Of Georgios Z. Papadopoulos > Sent: 17 July 2018 21:40 > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>; Malati Hegde; Samita Chakrabarti; Gabriel > Montenegro; lo; Charlie Perkins; [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [6lo] working group last call (wg lc) on > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time/> > > Dear Lijo and co-authors, > > I went through the draft, please find my comments below: > — — > > High level comments: > */ [GP] The draft defines the Deadline Time (DT), but it is not clear to me > how the arrival of the datagram within this pre-defined DT period is > guaranteed? > Indeed, the draft provides the necessary DT information, however, the only > action I could observe is the delay-sensitive datagram to be dropped if the > indicated DT is elapsed. > > > *** [LT] Yes, the Deadline Time (DT) specifies the maximum allowable delay > before which the packet should be delivered to the destination. The proposed > draft provides a mechanism for transporting the DT information. By > incorporating > deadline based scheduling/routing mechanisms within the intermediate nodes > using DT, one could guarantee deterministic behavior in terms of delay. [GP] Would you agree that this draft do not guarantees deterministic behavior in terms of delay, but it provides the information of maximum allowable delay for a packet to be delivered to the destination? To be more precise, for instance, lets us consider the following multi-hop network A—> B —> C. According this draft, it will required 2 timeslots (or 20ms) for a packet to be delivered at the DODAG Root C. However, if there is an external interference from A to B, then A may need to retransmit multiple times in order the datagram to be received by B. Then there are two options according to the draft: a) the datagram is dropped, to reduce the traffic, energy consumption. b) the datagram is delivered even if the deadline time is crossed, i.e., as you said in your e-mail “in some scenarios where the intention is also to know the total delay experienced by the packets in a network” In both bases, a and b, there is no guarantee that the datagram will be delivered in predefined time, i.e., in deterministic behavior. — — Thank you so much, Georgios ____________________________________ Georgios Z. Papadopoulos, Ph.D. Associate Professor, IMT Atlantique, Rennes web: www.georgiospapadopoulos.com <http://www.georgiospapadopoulos.com/> twitter: @gzpapadopoulos <https://twitter.com/gzpapadopoulos?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http://georgiospapadopoulos.com/> ____________________________________
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
