Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-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-6lo-deadline-time/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I support Magnus and Barry's Discuss. I would also like to see at least more text in the security consideration section about potential attacks or risks that can follow when the provided information is altered by another node or provided in a mal-intended way. Also it would be good to provide further information on how this deadline is supposed to be used by the network as well as by the endpoint. How does an endpoint decide about the right deadline? Does the endpoint need to know the RTT? How can this impact routing and scheduling? Of course these things don't have to be normatively specified, however, providing more information about the intended use and assumption would probably be helpful for implementors to do the right thing as well. _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
