Sure, Charlie: my comment is just a comment, and if it’s best to leave DTL and OTL defined as they are, then definitely do so. No worries.
To answer Carsten, the issue isn’t with DTL itself: it’s that DTL and OTL are defined differently. OTL is the length and DTL is the length minus one, and it’s that they’re different that I think might result in implementation errors. Anyway, no further discussion needed, and thanks for the discussion we’ve had. Barry On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 10:10 PM Charlie Perkins < [email protected]> wrote: > 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
