Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-04: Discuss
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-6lo-deadline-time/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This should be easy to explain and clear up, but I have to ask, as I don’t see anything about it in the document: what deters entities from using this with a short deadline time in order to get expedited delivery, when they don’t need it? How does this help a network if, ultimately, every transmission specifies a very short deadline time? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In the Introduction, please expand “BLE” on first use. In “Terminology”, you’re citing RFC 8174, but not usng the new BCP 14 boilerplate from there. Please copy/paste the new boilerplate. — Section 5 — The definition of “TU” is out of order; please move it so it’s in the same order in the definitions as in the block. Why is DTL the length *minus 1*? Doesn’t that invite mistakes? Is there a reason not to make it the length, and to say that 0 is not a valid value? _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
