Hello Barry,
I will make the editorial updates as suggested -- sorry I missed them
this time.
I think that DTL should be able to count to 16, and it would be nice for
it to fit in 4 bits. For this reason, I hope it will be O.K to maintain
the definition of DTL as it is.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 7/8/2019 7:04 PM, Barry Leiba via Datatracker wrote:
Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-05: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The changes to the Security Considerations on version -05 address my concern
about abuse of the deadline time. Thanks for that, and I'm clearing my DISCUSS
now.
Editorial comments that are still relevant in version -05:
In the Introduction, please expand “BLE” on first use.
In “Terminology”, you’re citing RFC 8174, but not using the new BCP 14
boilerplate from there. Please copy/paste the new boilerplate.
— Section 5 —
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? Do
you really need the extra size that the extra bit provides?
_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
