Skip to main content

Alternative Delta Time Encoding for CCNx Using Compact Floating-Point Arithmetic
draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv-05

Yes

Melinda Shore

No Objection

Jane Coffin
Jérôme François
Mat Ford

Recuse


Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this draft ready for publication in the IRTF stream?"

Allison Mankin
Yes
Comment (2023-09-12 for -04) Sent
Clear document describing the use cases and corner cases very well. They made changes for Carsten’s review. Good that signature time is not viewed as one of the candidates. Future question for the protocol but NOT relevant to this draft - do I read correctly that signature time isn’t covered by covered a hash? That might be a risk that was overlooked in earlier RFCs if so. But again, nothing to address in this draft
Carsten Bormann
Yes
Comment (2023-09-26 for -04) Sent
I have previously reviewed this document: a useful exposition of a compact representation of time intervals in protocols.

Nits:

67108863.0000000 is wrong.

RFC editor style is quotes, not emphasis, for document titles mentioned in the text (here: abstract); there is nothing wrong with giving the RFC number instead (or as well) as long as it doesn't look like a bibliography reference.
Melinda Shore
Yes
Jane Coffin
No Objection
Jérôme François
No Objection
Mat Ford
No Objection
David Oran
Recuse
Comment (2023-08-30 for -04) Not sent
Co author