Hello Roman, Please see below for some follow-up...
On 5/16/2019 6:22 AM, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker wrote:
Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-04: Discuss ... 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.
I agree with this. Please also refer to my response to Magnus's observation and DISCUSS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) I also support Barry’s DISCUSS on the need to discuss what happens to a network where all senders have short deadlines
I also agree with this as noted in my response to Barry's observation and DISCUSS. We will fashion appropriate text, and my guess is that it would go into the Security Considerations. Do you think that is the right place?
(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”?
I don't have the answer to that question. I could imagine that intermediate devices are configured with traffic descriptors that cause a match to the "Forward_IF_D=0" behavior. We could make a suggestion, but then avoid a normative condition for this behavior by specifying that the configuration details are out of scope for this document. Would that be O.K.?
(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.
This has been discussed in other emails as well. It is possible to mandate that the Deadline header SHOULD NOT cause pre-emption. I think such mandates are not enforceable, but would anyway serve as guidance for implementation.
(4) Editorial nits: ** Section 4. Typo. s/the the/the/
Thanks much for your review! Regards, Charlie P.
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
