Subject: [6lo] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 08:05:52 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-04: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Magnus and Barry's Discuss. I would also like to see at least more
text in the security consideration section about potential attacks or risks
that can follow when the provided information is altered by another node or
provided in a mal-intended way.

Also it would be good to provide further information on how this deadline is
supposed to be used by the network as well as by the endpoint. How does an
endpoint decide about the right deadline? Does the endpoint need to know the
RTT? How can this impact routing and scheduling? Of course these things don't
have to be normatively specified, however, providing more information about the
intended use and assumption would probably be helpful for implementors to do
the right thing as well.