Hi Charlie! > -----Original Message----- > From: Charlie Perkins [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 5:15 PM > To: Roman Danyliw <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Samita Chakrabarti > <[email protected]>; Shwetha Bhandari <[email protected]>; 6lo- > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-04: > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > 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.
The new text in -05 addresses my concerns. Thank you for the update. > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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.? Makes sense to me. > > > > > (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. I tend to agree. > > > > > (4) Editorial nits: > > ** Section 4. Typo. s/the the/the/ > > > Thanks much for your review! Thanks for the updates! Roman > Regards, > Charlie P. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
