Roman Danyliw 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I support Magnus’s DISCUSS #1 (and perhaps we are noting the same thing) The current Security Considerations text needs explicit discussion of the impact of the deadline being manipulated. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) I also support Barry’s DISCUSS on the need to discuss what happens to a network where all senders have short deadlines (2) Section 5. Per the description of the D flag, how would a forwarding device “suspect that a downstream node might find [a packet] useful”? (3) Section 6. Is there normative language about the behavior of forwarding entities when encountering the Deadline header in this section? If not, I’d recommend adding explicit text to that effect. (4) Editorial nits: ** Section 4. Typo. s/the the/the/ _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
