Dear Dale, Thanks for reviewing draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-03.
Authors of draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time recently produced revision -04 of the draft, based on a number of comments received, including yours: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time/ Do you think -04 satisfies your previous concerns? Thanks, Shwetha and Carles (6lo co-chairs) > Hello Dale, > > I made some brief follow-up to your comments inline below. I think we > are in agreement about what needs to be done. > > On 2/14/2019 6:37 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote: >> Charlie Perkins <[email protected]> writes: >>> I'm not sure about this because even in 6TiSCH networks, one could >>> imagine using NTP-based time representations. Besides that, we'd >>> really >>> like to avoid restricting the use of the Deadline-6LoRHE to only >>> 6TiSCH. >> I agree that one could imagine any number of schemes, and in the long >> run, broad use of Deadline-6LoRHE is desirable. But that doesn't change >> the fact that while the draft purports to define the meaning of three >> values of the TU field, for two of those values, the draft doesn't >> specify what zero-point is being used for the time scale, and so >> implementations using those values cannot ensure interoperation. >> >> Now if what you really mean is "NTP time scale in microseconds" and "NTP >> time scale in seconds", those *are* definitions. But that's not what >> the >> draft says. > > > We have revamped the way of representing the deadline time and optional > origination time, and I think it will resolve your comments here. In a > nutshell, we are following the recommendations in > draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps. > > >> ... >>> We will rework the time representation and show a proposed new format >>> soon. I agree that, if both values are present, one should be a delta >>> from the other. >> The way you write that suggests that either or both of the times can be >> present. But the deadline time is not optional. So if the origination >> time is present, both times are present. > > > Agreed, and the new revision will make this clear as well. > > Regards, > Charlie P. > > > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
