Subject: [6lo] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 06:22:36 -0700

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-04: Discuss

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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) I also support Barry’s DISCUSS on the need to discuss what happens to a
network where all senders have short deadlines

(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”?

(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.

(4) Editorial nits:
** Section 4.  Typo.  s/the the/the/

---

From: Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 14:15:24 -0700

Hello Roman,

Please see below for some follow-up...

On 5/16/2019 6:22 AM, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker wrote:
> ...

I agree with this.  Please also refer to my response to Magnus's 
observation and DISCUSS.

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?

> 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.?

> 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.

> ** Section 4.  Typo.  s/the the/the/

Thanks much for your review!

Regards,
Charlie P.