Subject: [6lo] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 19:04:10 -0700

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?

---

From: Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 19:10:20 -0700

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.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 01:31:40 -0400

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-masked]> wrote:

> > Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html