<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!-- This template is for creating an Internet Draft using xml2rfc,
     which is available here: http://xml.resource.org. -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!-- One method to get references from the online citation libraries.
     There has to be one entity for each item to be referenced.
     An alternate method (rfc include) is described in the references. -->
<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM
	"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2629 SYSTEM
	"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2629.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3552 SYSTEM
	"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3552.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis SYSTEM
"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml">

]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<!-- used by XSLT processors -->
<!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs),
     please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. -->
<!-- Below are generally applicable Processing Instructions (PIs) that most
     I-Ds might want to use.
     (Here they are set differently than their defaults in xml2rfc v1.32) -->
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space
     (using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
<!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->
<rfc category="std"
		docName="draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-05" ipr="trust200902">
  <!-- category values: std, bcp, info, exp, and historic
 http://umeeting.huawei.com/Portal/business.action?BMECID=1474233&BMETimestamp=1426658395147
	        ipr values: full3667, noModification3667, noDerivatives3667
     you can add the attributes updates="NNNN" and obsoletes="NNNN"
     they will automatically be output with "(if approved)" -->

  <!-- ***** FRONT MATTER ***** -->

<front>
    <!-- The abbreviated title is used in the page header - it is only
         necessary if the full title is longer than 39 characters -->

    <title abbrev="6lo Delivery Deadline Time">
	Packet Delivery Deadline time in 6LoWPAN Routing Header </title>

    <!-- add 'role="editor"' below for the editors if appropriate -->

    <!-- Another author who claims to be an editor -->



   <author fullname="Lijo Thomas" initials="" surname="Lijo Thomas">
      <organization>C-DAC</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
        <street>Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC),
	      Vellayambalam</street>
          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->
          <city>Trivandrum</city>
          <region/>
          <code>695033</code>
          <country>India</country>
        </postal>
        <phone/>
        <email>lijo@cdac.in</email>
        <!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
      </address>
   </author>

   <author fullname="Satish Anamalamudi" initials="S." surname="Anamalamudi">
      <organization>SRM University-AP</organization>
          <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Amaravati Campus</street>
          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->
          <city>Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh</city>
          <region/>
          <code>522 502</code>
          <country>India</country>
          </postal>
        <phone/>
        <email>satishnaidu80@gmail.com</email>
        <!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
      </address>
    </author>


    <author fullname="S.V.R Anand" initials="" surname="S.V.R.Anand">
      <organization>Indian Institute of Science</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street></street>
          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->
          <city>Bangalore</city>
          <region/>
          <code>560012</code>
          <country>India</country>
        </postal>
        <phone/>
        <email>anand@ece.iisc.ernet.in</email>
        <!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Malati Hegde" initials="" surname="Malati Hegde">
      <organization>Indian Institute of Science</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street></street>
          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->
          <city>Bangalore</city>
          <region/>
          <code>560012</code>
          <country>India</country>
        </postal>
        <phone/>
        <email>malati@ece.iisc.ernet.in</email>
        <!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
      </address>
    </author>


    <author fullname="Charles E. Perkins" initials="C.E." surname="Perkins">
      <organization>Futurewei</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>2330 Central Expressway</street>
          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->
          <city>Santa Clara</city>
          <region/>
          <code>95050</code>
          <country>Unites States</country>
        </postal>
        <phone/>
        <email>charliep@computer.org</email>
        <!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
      </address>
    </author>

    <date />

    <!-- If the month and year are both specified and are the current ones,
         xml2rfc will fill in the current day for you. If only the current
         year is specified, xml2rfc will fill in the current day and month for
         you. If the year is not the current one, it is necessary to specify
         at least a month (xml2rfc assumes day="1" if not specified for the
	 purpose of calculating the expiry date).  With drafts it is normally
	 sufficient to specify just the year. -->

    <!-- Meta-data Declarations -->

    <area>Internet</area>

    <workgroup>6lo</workgroup>

    <!-- WG name at the upperleft corner of the doc;
         IETF is fine for individual submissions.  If this element is not
         present, the default is "Network Working Group", which is used by
         the RFC Editor as a nod to the history of the IETF. -->

    <keyword>Routing header, Timestamp</keyword>

    <!-- Keywords will be incorporated into HTML output
         files in a meta tag but they have no effect on text or nroff
         output. If you submit your draft to the RFC Editor, the
         keywords will be used for the search engine. -->

    <abstract>
    <t>
	This document specifies a new type for the 6LoWPAN routing header
	containing the deadline time for data packets, designed for use over
	constrained networks.  The deadline time enables forwarding and
	scheduling decisions for time critical IoT machine to machine (M2M)
	applications that operate within time-synchronized networks that agree
	on the meaning of the time representations used for the deadline
	time values.
    </t>
<!--  Lijo : Eric Vyncke Comment:  "Last sentence needs to be parsed as it very long" -->
<!--  Lijo : Suggested Change : "that operate within time-synchronized networks. his document specifies the time representation -->
<!--                       that needs to be followed by such networks for the deadline time values.. " -->
<!--  Lijo : @Charlie : Should we expand M2M based on eric comment ?-->
    </abstract>
</front>

<middle>
<section title="Introduction" anchor="Intro">
    <t>
	Low Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) are likely to be deployed for
	real time industrial applications requiring end-to-end
	delay guarantees <xref target="I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases"/>.
	A Deterministic Network ("detnet") typically requires some data packets
	to reach their receivers within strict time bounds.
	Intermediate nodes use the deadline information to make
        appropriate packet forwarding and scheduling decisions to meet the
        time bounds.
    </t>
    <t>
	This document specifies a new type for the Elective 6LoWPAN Routing
	Header (6LoRHE), so that the deadline time (i.e., the time of latest
	acceptable delivery) of data
	packets can be included within the 6LoWPAN routing header.
	<xref target="RFC8138"/> specifies the 6LoWPAN Routing Header (6LoRH),
	compression schemes for RPL routing (source routing) operation
	<xref target="RFC6554"/>, header compression of RPL Packet
	Information <xref target="RFC6553"/>, and IP-in-IP encapsulation.    
	This document also specifies handling of the deadline
	time when packets traverse between time-synchronized networks
	operating in different timezones or distinct reference clocks.
	Time synchronization techniques are outside the scope of this
	document.  There are a number of standards available for this
	purpose, including IEEE 1588 <xref target="ieee-1588"/>,
	IEEE 802.1AS <xref target="dot1AS-2011"/>,
	IEEE 802.15.4-2015 TSCH <xref target="dot15-tsch"/>, and more.
    </t>
	<!--  Lijo : Eric Vyncke Comment:  "does 'time zone' in this document does not refer to EST.." -->
	<!--  Lijo :suggestion:  "time-synchronized networks operating over distinct reference clocks resulting in different timezones." -->
    <t>
	The Deadline-6LoRHE can be used in any time synchronized 6Lo network.
	A 6TiSCH network is used to describe the implementation of the
	Deadline-6LoRHE, but this does not preclude its use in scenarios other
	than 6TiSCH.  For instance, there is a growing interest in using 6lo
	over a BLE mesh network <xref target="I-D.ietf-6lo-blemesh"/> in
	industrial IoT <xref target="dotBLEMesh"/>. BLE mesh time
	synchronization is being explored by the Bluetooth
	community.  There are also cases under consideration in Wi-SUN
	<xref target="Wi-SUN_PHY"/>, <xref target="dotWi-SUN"/>.
    </t>
</section>	<!-- End of section "Introduction" -->

<section anchor="acronyms_terms" title="Terminology">

  <t>
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
	"SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
	"MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
	described in <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/>.
  </t>
  <t>
	This document uses the terminology defined in
	<xref target="RFC6550"/> and
	<xref target="I-D.ietf-6tisch-terminology"/>.
  </t>
</section>	<!-- End of section "Terminology" -->

<section title="6LoRHE Generic Format">

    <t>
	Note: this section is not normative and is included for convenience.
	The generic header format of the 6LoRHE is specified in
	<xref target="I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch"/>.
	<xref target="fig1"/> illustrates the 6LoRHE generic format.
	<figure anchor="fig1" title="6LoRHE format">
             <artwork><![CDATA[
   0                   1
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-        ...              -+
  |1|0|1| Length  |      Type     |        Options            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-        ...              -+
                                   <---    length         --->]]>
             </artwork>
	</figure>
	
<!--  Lijo : Eric Vyncke Comment: Added "Options" in above figure . DONE -->
	<list style="symbols">
	<t> Length: Length of the 6LoRHE expressed
	    in bytes, excluding the first 2 bytes.  This enables a node to
	    skip a 6LoRHE if the Type is not recognized/supported.</t>
	<t> Type (variable length): Type of the 6LoRHE
		(see <xref target="iana"/>)</t>
	</list>
    </t>
</section>	<!-- End of section "6LoRHE Header Format" -->

<section title="Deadline-6LoRHE"  anchor="Description">
	<t>
	    The Deadline-6LoRHE (see <xref target="fig2"/>) is an elective
	    6LoRH (i.e., a 6LoRHE <xref target="RFC8138"/>) that provides
	    the Deadline Time (DT) for an IPv6 datagram in a compressed form.
	    Along with the deadline, the header can include the packet
	    Origination Time Delta (OTD), the time at which the packet is
	    enqueued for transmission (expressed as a value to be subtracted
	    from DT); this enables a close estimate of the total delay
	    incurred by a packet.  The OTD field is initialized by the sender
	    based on the current time at the outgoing network interface through
	    which the packet is forwarded.  Since the OTD is a delta,
	    the length of the OTD field (i.e., OTL) will require fewer
	    bits than the length of the DT field (i.e., DTL).

	</t>
   
<!--  Lijo : Mirja Kuhlewind Comment Changed  SHOULD to should  -->

	<t> The deadline field contains the value of the deadline time for the
	    packet -- in other words, the time by which the application expects
	    the packet to be delivered to the Receiver.

<?rfc subcompact="yes" ?>
	<list>
	<t> packet_deadline_time = packet_origination_time + max_delay </t>
	</list>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
	</t>

	<t>
<!--  Lijo : Mirja Kuhlewind Comment: Change  "SHOULD" to should,  -->
	    In order to support delay-sensitive deterministic applications,
	    all nodes within the network should process the Deadline-6LoRHE.
	    The packet deadline time (DT) and origination time (OTD) are
	    represented in time units determined by a scaling parameter in
	    the routing header.  The Network ASN (Absolute Slot Number)
	    can be used as a time unit in a time slotted
            synchronized network (for instance a 6TiSCH network, where global
	    time is maintained in the units of slot lengths of a certain
            resolution).
	</t>

	<t> The delay experienced by packets in the network is a useful
	    metric for network diagnostics and performance monitoring.
	    Whenever a packet crosses into a network using
	    a different reference clock, the Destination Time field is updated
	    to represent the same Destination Time, but expressed using the
	    reference clock of the interface into the new network.  Then the
	    origination time is the same as the current time when the packet
	    is transmitted into the new network, minus the delay already
	    experienced by the packet, say 'current_dly'.  In this way, within
	    the newly entered network, the packet will appear to have
	    originated 'current_dly' time units earlier with respect
	    to the reference clock of the new network.</t>
	<t>
	    new_network_origin_time = time_now_in_new_network - current_dly
	</t>
	<t>
	    The following example illustrates these calculations
	    when a packet travels between three networks, each in a different
	    time zone. 'x' can be 1, 2 or 3.  Suppose that the deadline time
	    as measured in timezone 1 is 1050 and the origination time is 50.
	    Suppose that the difference between TZ2 and TZ1 is 900, and the
	    difference between TZ3 and TZ3 is 3600.  In the figure, OT
	    is the origination time as measured in the current timezone, and
	    is equal to DT - OTD, that is, DT - 1000.
	    <xref target="time-update"/> uses the following abbreviations:
	    <list>
	    <t>TxA  : Time of arrival of packet in the network 'x'</t>
	    <t>TxD  : Departure time of packet from the network 'x'</t>
	    <t>dlyx : Delay experienced by the packet in the
			previous network(s)</t>
	    <t>TZx  : The time zone of network 'x' </t>
	    </list>
	</t>
	<t>
	<figure title="Destination Time Update example" anchor="time-update">
<artwork> <![CDATA[
            TZ1                      TZ2                    TZ3
  T1A=50|                 |                             |
        |----  dly1=50    |                             |
        |     \           |                             |
        |      \          |                             |
        |       \ T1D=100 |T2A=1000                     |
        |        -------->|-----           dly2=450     |
        |                 |     \                       |
        |                 |      \                      |
        |                 |       \          T2D=1400   | T3A=5000
        |                 |         ------------------->|---------->
        |                 |                             |
        v                 v                             v

   dly0 = 0          dly1 = T1D-OT1      dly2 = T2D-OT2
                          = 100-50            = 1400 - 950
                          = 50                = 450

   OT1 = T1A-dly0     OT2 = T2A-dly1     OT3 = T3A-dly2
       = 50               = 1000-50          = 5000 - 450
                          = 950              = 4550
]]></artwork> </figure>
    </t>
    <t> There are multiple ways that a packet can be delayed, including
	queuing delay, MAC layer contention delay, serialization delay, and
	propagation delays.   Sometimes there are processing delays as well.
	For the purpose of determining whether or not the deadline has
	already passed, these various delays are not distinguished.
    </t>
</section>	<!-- End of section "Deadline-6LoRHE Description" -->

<section title="Deadline-6LoRHE Format" anchor="Format">
    <t>
	<figure anchor="fig2" title="Deadline-6LoRHE format">
	<artwork><![CDATA[
     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |1|0|1| Length  |  6LoRH Type   |D| TU|  DTL  | OTL | BinaryPt  |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |      DT (variable length)     | OTD(variable length)(optional)|
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]>
        </artwork>
	</figure>
    </t>

    <?rfc subcompact="yes" ?>
    <t> <list style="symbols">
    <t> Length (5 bits): Length represents the total length of the
	Deadline-6LoRHE type measured in octets.</t>
    <t> 6LoRH Type: TBD (see <xref target="iana"/>)</t>
    <t> D flag (1 bit): The 'D' flag, set by the Sender, qualifies the action
        to be taken when a 6LR detects that the deadline time has elapsed.
        If 'D' bit is 1, then the 6LR MUST drop the packet if the
        deadline time is elapsed.
	If 'D' bit is 0, the packet MAY be forwarded on an exception
	basis, if the forwarding node is NOT in a situation of constrained
	resource, and if there are reasons to suspect that downstream nodes
	might find it useful (delay measurements, interpolations, etc.).
    </t>
	<t> TU (2 bits) : Indicates the time units for DT and OTD fields.
	    The encodings for the DT and OTD fields use the same
	    time units and precision.
	<list>
	<t>00 : Time represented in seconds and fractional seconds</t>
	<t>01 : Reserved</t>
	<t>10 : Network ASN</t>
	<t>11 : Reserved</t>
	</list>
    </t>
    <t> DTL (4 bits): Length of DT field as an unsigned 4-bit integer,
	  encoding the length of the field in hex digits, minus one.
    </t>

    <t> OTL (3 bits) : Length of OTD field as an unsigned 3-bit integer,
	encoding the length of the field in hex digits.  If OTL == 0, the
	OTD field is not present.  The value of OTL MUST NOT exceed the
	value of DTL plus one.
	<list>
	<t> For example, DTL = 0b0000 means the deadline time in the 6LoRHE is
	    1 hex digit (4 bits) long.  OTL = 0b111 means the origination time
	    is 7 hex digits (28 bits) long.</t>
	</list></t>
    <t> Binary Pt (6 bits) : If zero, the number of bits of the integer part
        the DT is equal to the number of bits of the fractional part of
	the DT.  if nonzero, the Binary Pt is a signed integer determining
	the position of the binary point within the value for the DT.
        <list style="symbols">
	<t> If BinaryPt value is positive, then the number of bits for the
	    integer part of the DT is increased by the value of BinaryPt,
	    and the number of bits for the fractional part of the DT is
	    correspondingly reduced.  This increases the range of DT.</t>
	<t> If BinaryPt value is negative, then the number of bits for the
	    integer part of the DT is decreased by the value of BinaryPt,
	    and the number of bits for the fractional part of the DT is
	    correspondingly increased.  This increases the precision
	    of the fractional seconds part of DT.</t>
		
<!--  Lijo : Alexey Melnikov Comment:  "It would be good if you specified how negative values are represented -->
<!--                                    and the range for positive and negative values" -->
	
	</list> </t>
    <t> DT Value (8..64-bit) : An unsigned integer of DTL+1 hex digits
	giving the Deadline Time value  </t>
    <t> OTD Value (8..64-bit) : An unsigned integer of OTL hex digits giving
	the Origination Time as a negative offset from the DT value </t>
    </list> </t>

    <?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
    <t> Whenever a sender initiates the IP datagram, it includes the
	Deadline-6LoRHE along with other 6LoRH information.  For information
	about the time synchronization requirements between sender and
	receiver see <xref target="sync"/>.
    </t>

    <t>
<!--  CEP: Wraparound, revisited...  -->
	For the chosen time unit, a compressed time representation is
	available as follows.  First, the application on the originating node
	has to determine
	how many time bits are needed to represent the difference between the
	time at which the packet is launched and the deadline time, including
	the representation of fractional time units.  That number of bits
	(say, N_bits) determines DTL (the length of the Deadline Time (DT))
	as follows:
    		<list>
        		<t> DTL = (N_bits mod 4) </t>
		</list>
	The number of bits determined by DTL allows counting any number of
	fractional time units in the range of interest determined by DT and the
	origination time OT.  Denote this number of fractional time units to
	be Epoch_Range(DTL) (i.e., Epoch_Range is a function of DTL).
    		<list>
        		<t> Epoch_Range(DTL) = (2^(4*(DTL+1)) </t>
		</list>
	Each point of time between OT and DT is represented by a time unit and
	a fractional time unit; in this section, this combined representation
	is called a rational time unit (RTU).  1 RTU measures the smallest
	fractional time that can be represented between two points of time
	in the epoch (i.e., within the range of interest). 
    </t>
    <t>
	DT - OT cannot exceed 2^(4*(DTL+1)) == 16^(DTL+1).  A low value of DTL
	leads to a small Epoch_Range; if DTL = 0, there will only be 16 RTUs
	within the Epoch_Range (DTL) = 16^1 (for any time unit TU).  The
	values that can be represented in the current epoch are in the range
	[0, (Epoch_Range(DTL) - 1)].  To minimize the required DTL, wraparound
	is allowed but works naturally with the arithmetic modulo Epoch_Range.  
    </t>
    <t>
	By default, DTL determines t_0 in the chosen RTUs as follows:
	<list>
       	<t> t_0 = [current_time - (current_time mod Epoch_Range (DTL))].</t>
	</list>
	
	Naturally, t_0 occurs at time 0 (or time 0.0000...) in the current
	epoch.  The last possible origination time representable in the current
	epoch (counted in RTUs) is t_last = (t0 + (2^(4*(DTL+1))-1)).  In the
	RTUs chosen, the current epoch resides at the underlying time
	interval [t_0, t_last].  If DT - OT is greater than t_last - OT, then
	wraparound within the Epoch_Range occurs naturally.  In all cases,
	OT is represented by the value (OT mod Epoch_Range) and DT is
	represented by the value (DT mod Epoch_Range).  All arithmetic is
	to be performed modulo (Epoch_Range(DTL)), yielding only positive
	values for DT - OT.
    </t>

    <t>
    <list>
        <t> Example: Consider a 6TiSCH network with time-slot length of 10ms.
	    Let the time units be ASNs (TU == (binary)0b10).  Let the
	    current ASN when the packet is originated be 54400, and the
            maximum allowable delay (max_delay) for the packet delivery be 1
	    second from the packet origination, then:
	    <list>
	        <t> deadline_time = packet_origination_time + max_delay
		    <list>
			<t> = 0xD480 + 0x64 (Network ASNs) </t>
			<t> = 0xD4E4 (Network ASNs) </t>
		    </list>
		</t>
                <t> Then, the Deadline-6LoRHE encoding with nonzero OTL is:
		    <list>
			<t> DTL = 3, OTL = 2, TU = 0b10, BinaryPt = 8,
		        	DT = 0xD4E4, OTD = 0x64</t>
		    </list>
		</t>
	    </list>
	</t>
        <t> <!--  Put another example here.  --></t>
    </list> </t>

    <?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
</section>	<!-- End of section "Deadline-6LoRHE" -->


<section title="Deadline-6LoRHE in Three Network Scenarios">
    <t>
	In this section, Deadline-6LoRHE operation is described for 3
	network scenarios.  <xref target="fig3"/> depicts a
	constrained time-synchronized LLN that has two subnets N1 and N2,
	connected through LBRs <xref target="I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router"/>
	with different reference clock times T1 and T2.
	<figure anchor="fig3" title=" Intra-network Timezone Scenario">
	<artwork><![CDATA[
                       +-------------------+
                       | Time Synchronized |
                       |      Network      |
                       +---------+---------+
                                 |
                                 |
                                 |
                  +--------------+--------------+
                  |                             |
               +-----+                       +-----+
               |     | Backbone              |     | Backbone
          o    |     | router                |     | router
               +-----+                       +-----+
          o                  o               o
              o    o   o               o  o   o  o   o  o
         o      LLN    o                 o  LLN   o  o
            o   o    o      o             o o o     o  o
      6LoWPAN Network (subnet N1)   6LoWPAN Network (subnet N2)
                   ]]></artwork>
	</figure>
    </t>

<section
   title="Scenario 1: Endpoints in the same DODAG (N1)">
    <t>
	In scenario 1, shown in <xref target="fig4"/>, the Sender 'S' has an
	IP datagram to be routed to a Receiver 'R' within
	the same DODAG.  For the route segment from Sender to 6LBR, the Sender
	includes a Deadline-6LoRHE by encoding the deadline time
	contained in the packet. Subsequently, each 6LR will perform hop-by-hop
	routing to forward the packet towards the 6LBR.  Once 6LBR receives
	the IP datagram, it sends the packet downstream towards 'R'.
    </t>
    <t>
	In case of a network running RPL non-storing mode, the 6LBR generates
	a IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulated packet when sending the packet downwards
	to the Receiver <xref target="I-D.ietf-roll-useofrplinfo"/>.
	The 6LBR copies the Deadline-6LoRHE from the Sender originated IP
	header to the outer IP header. The Deadline-6LoRHE contained in
	the inner IP header is removed.
    </t>
    <t>
	<figure anchor="fig4" title="End points within same DODAG (subnet N1)">
	<artwork><![CDATA[
                           +-------+
                ^          | 6LBR  |       |
                |          |       |       |
                |          +-------+       |
        Upward  |         /      /| \      | Downward
        routing |      (F)      / |  \     | routing
                |     /  \    (C) |  (D)   |
                |    /    \    |  | / |\   |
                |  (A)    (B)  : (E)  : R  |
                |  /|\     | \   / \       |
                | S : :    : :  :  :       v ]]></artwork>
	</figure>
    </t>

    <t>
	At the tunnel endpoint of the encapsulation, the
	Deadline-6LoRHE is copied back from the outer header to inner
	header, and the inner IP packet is delivered to 'R'.
    </t>
</section>	<!-- End of section "Scenario 1: Endpoints in the same ..." -->

<section
   title="Scenario 2: Endpoints in Networks with Dissimilar L2 Technologies.">
    <t>
	In scenario 2, shown in <xref target="fig5"/>,
	the Sender 'S' (belonging to DODAG 1) has IP datagram to be routed to
	a Receiver 'R' over a time-synchronized IPv6 network.  For the route
	segment from 'S' to 6LBR, 'S' includes a Deadline-6LoRHE.
	Subsequently, each 6LR will perform hop-by-hop routing to forward the
	packet towards the 6LBR.  Once the Deadline Time information reaches
	the border router, the packet will be encoded according to the
	mechanism prescribed in the other time-synchronized network depicted
	as "Time Synchronized Network" in the figure 6.
 	The specific data encapsulation mechanisms followed in the new network 	
	are beyond the scope of this document.
        <figure anchor="fig5"
         title="Packet transmission in Dissimilar L2 Technologies or Internet">
    <artwork><![CDATA[
                           +----------------+
                           | Time           |
                           | Synchronized   |------R
                           | Network        |
                           +----------------+
                                   |
                                   |
                         ----------+-----------
                  ^                |
                  |            +---+---+
                  |            | 6LBR  |
         Upward   |            |       |
         routing  |            +------++
                  |        (F)/      /| \
                  |       /  \      / |  \
                  |      /    \   (C) |  (D)
                  |    (A)    (B)  |  | / |\
                  |    /|\     |\  : (E)  : :
                  |   S : :    : :   / \
                                    :   :]]>
        </artwork>
        </figure>

    </t>
	
    <t>
	For instance, the IP datagram could be routed to another time
	synchronized deterministic network using the mechanism specified in
	the In-band OAM <xref target="I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data"/>, and then
	the deadline time would be updated according to the measurement
	of the current time in the new network.
    </t>
</section>	<!-- End of section "Scenario 2: Packet transmission in ..." -->

<section
   title="Scenario 3: Packet transmission across different DODAGs (N1 to N2).">
    <t>
	Consider the scenario depicted in <xref target="fig6"/>, in which
	the Sender 'S' (belonging to DODAG 1) has an IP datagram to be
	sent to Receiver 'R' belonging to another DODAG (DODAG 2).  The
	operation of this scenario can be decomposed into combination of case
	1 and case 2 scenarios. For the route segment from 'S' to 6LBR1,
	'S' includes the Deadline-6LoRHE.  Subsequently, each 6LR will
	perform hop-by-hop operation to forward the packet towards the 6LBR1.
	Once the IP datagram reaches 6LBR1 of DODAG1, it applies the same rule
	as described in Case 2 while routing the packet to 6LBR2 over a (likely)
	time synchronized wired backhaul.  The wired side of 6LBR2 can be mapped
	to receiver of Case 2. Once the packet reaches 6LBR2, it updates the
	Deadline-6LoRHE by adding or subtracting the difference of time of
	DODAG2 and sends the packet downstream towards 'R'.
    </t>
    <figure anchor="fig6"
		title="Packet transmission in different DODAGs(N1 to N2)">
    <artwork><![CDATA[
                 Time Synchronized Network
               -+---------------------------+-
                |                           |
   DODAG1   +---+---+                   +---+---+   DODAG2
            | 6LBR1 |                   | 6LBR2 |
            |       |                   |       |
            +-------+                   +-------+
        (F)/      /| \              (F)/      /| \
       /  \      / |  \            /  \      / |  \
      /    \   (C) |  (D)         /    \   (C) |  (D)
    (A)    (B)  |  | / |\       (A)    (B)  |  |   |\
    /|\     |\  : (E)  : :      /|\     |\  : (E)  : :
   S : :    : :   / \          : : :    : :   / \
                 :   :                       :   R
Network N1, time zone T1      Network N2, time zone T2]]>
    </artwork>
    </figure>
    <t>
	Consider an example of a 6TiSCH network in which S in DODAG1
	generates the packet at ASN 20000 to R in DODAG2. Let the maximum
	allowable delay be 1 second. The time-slot length in DODAG1 and DODAG2
	is assumed to be 10ms.  Once the deadline time is encoded in
	Deadline-6LoRHE, the packet is forwarded to 6LBR of DODAG1.
	Suppose the packet reaches 6LBR of DODAG1 at ASN 20030.
    </t>
	<t>
<?rfc subcompact="yes" ?>
	<list>
    <t> current_time = ASN at LBR * slot_length_value</t>
	<t></t>
    <t> remaining_time = deadline_time - current_time</t>
	<t> = ((packet_origination_time + max_delay) - current time)</t>
	<t> = (20000 + 100) - 20030 </t>
	<t> = 30 (in Network ASNs)</t>
	<t> = 30 * 10^3 milliseconds. </t>
	</list>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
    </t>
    <t>
	Once the Deadline Time information reaches the border router,
	the packet will be encoded according to the mechanism prescribed
	in the other time-synchronized network.
    </t>
</section> <!-- End of section "Scenario 3: Packet transmission across ..." -->
</section>	<!-- End of section "Deadline-6LoRHE
			in different network scenarios" -->

<section title="IANA Considerations" anchor="iana">
    <t>
	This document defines a new Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type,
	and IANA is requested to assign a value (TBD) from the 6LoWPAN
	Dispatch Page1 number space for this purpose.

	<!--  New: Donald E. Eastlake comments -> Modified writings  . -->
		
	<figure anchor="fig8" title="Deadline-6LoRHE type">
	<artwork><![CDATA[
                  Elective 6LoRH Type     Value
                +----------------------+--------+
                |   Deadline-6LoRHE    |  TBD   |
                +----------------------+--------+]]>
        </artwork>
	</figure>
    </t>
</section>	<!-- End of section "IANA Considerations" -->

<section title="Synchronization Aspects" anchor="sync">
    <t>
	The document supports time representation of the deadline and
	origination times carried in the packets traversing through networks
	of different time zones having different time synchronization
	mechanisms. For instance, in a 6TiSCH network where the time is
	maintained as ASN time slots, the time synchronization is achieved
	through beaconing among the nodes as described in
	<xref target="RFC7554"/>.
	There could be 6lo networks that employ NTP where the nodes are
	synchronized with an external reference clock from an NTP server.
	The specification of the time synchronization method that need to
	be followed by a network is beyond the scope of the document.
    </t>
	<!--
	Lijo : Needs to work on the syncronization aspect, 
		  @ Charlie, Kindly put your comments.
    -->
    <t> 
	The number of hex digits chosen to represent DT, and the portion of
	that field allocated to represent integer number of seconds, determines
	the meaning of t_0, i.e., the meaning of DT == 0 in the chosen
	representation.  If DTL == 0, then there are only 4 bits that can
	be used to count the time units, so that DT == 0 can never be more
	than 16 time units (or fractional time units) in the past.  This then
	requires that the time
	synchronization between sender and receiver has to be tighter than
	16 units.  If the binary point were moved so that all the bits
	were used for fractional time units (e.g., fractional seconds or
	fractional ASNs), the time synchronization requirement would be
	correspondingly tighter.
    </t>
    <t> 
	A 4-bit field for DT allows up to 16 hex digits, which is 64 bits.
	That is enough to represent the NTP <xref target="RFC5905"/>
	64-bit timestamp format, which is more than enough for the purposes
	of establishing deadline times.  Unless the binary point is moved,
	this is enough to represent time since year 1900.
    </t>
    <t> 
	For example, suppose that DTL = 0b0000 and the DT bits are split
	evenly; then we can count up to 3.75 seconds by quarter-seconds.

<!--  CEP: Deleted in favor of a more rigid mechanism, easier to specify and
      	   implement.
					In that case t_0 would be
	the most recent second of the current minute that has
	t&nbsp;mod&nbsp;4&nbsp;==&nbsp;0. In other words, t_0 could be 0, 4,
	8, 12, 16, ..., 52, or 56 seconds since the start of the most recent
	minute.  The networks have to be synchronized well enough to ensure
	detection of overrun, and therefore to know which of those values is
	the correct value for t_0.  This is the hardest case.
  -->
    </t>
    <t> 
	If DTL = 3 and the DT bits are again split evenly, then we can count
	up to 256 seconds (in steps of 1/256 of a second).
    </t>
    <t> 
	In all cases, t_0 is defined as specified in <xref target="Format"/>
	<list>
       	<t> t_0 = [current_time - (current_time mod (2^(4*(DTL+1))))] </t>
	</list>
	regardless of the choice of TU.
    </t>
    <t> 
<!--
	The ability to move the binary point doesn't affect the meaning of t_0.  The meaning of t_0 is determined by the range of the integer number of seconds (in the chosen precision for the DT field).
  -->
	For TU = 0b00, the time units are seconds.  With DTL == 15,
	and Binary Pt == 0, the epoch is (by default) January 1,
	1900 at 00:00 UTC.  The resolution is then (2 ^ (- 32)) seconds,
	which is the maximum possible.
	This time format wraps around every 2^32 seconds, which is
	roughly 136 years.
    </t>
    <t> 
	For TU = 0b10, the time units are ASNs.  The start time is relative,
	and updated by a mechanism out of scope for this document.
	With 10 ms slots, DTL = 15, and Binary Pt == 0, it would take over
	a year for the ASN to wrap around.
<!--  CEP: The number of years is 4294967296 / 3155760000 -->
	                                    Typically, the number of hex
	digits allocated for TU = 0b10 would be less than 15.
    </t>
</section>	<!-- End of section "Synchronization Aspects" -->

<section title="Security Considerations">
    <t>
	The security considerations of <xref target="RFC4944"/>,
	<xref target="RFC6282"/> and <xref target="RFC6553"/> apply.
	Using a compressed format as opposed to the full in-line format is
	logically equivalent and does not create an opening for a new threat
	when compared to <xref target="RFC6550"/>, <xref target="RFC6553"/>
	and <xref target="RFC6554"/>.
    </t>
    <t>
	The protocol elements specified in this document are designed to work
	in controlled operational environments (e.g., industrial process
	control and automation).  In order to avoid misuse of the deadline
	information that could potentially result in a Denial of Service (DoS)
	attack, proper functioning of this deadline time mechanism requires
	the provisioning and management of network resources for supporting 
	traffic flows with deadlines, performance monitoring, and admission
	control policy enforcement.  The network provisioning can be done
	either centrally or in a distributed fashion.  For example, tracks in
	a 6tisch network could be established by a centralized PCE, as
	described in the 6tisch architecture
	<xref target="I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture"/>. 
    </t>
    <t>
	The Security Considerations of Detnet architecture
	<xref target="I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture"/> mostly apply to
	this document as well, as follows.  To secure the request and control
	of resources allocated for tracks, authentication and authorization
	can be used for each device, and network controller devices.
	In the case of distributed control protocols, security is expected
	to be provided by the security properties of the protocols in use.
    </t>
    <t>
	When deadline bearing flows are identified on a per-flow basis, which
	may provide attackers with additional information about the data flows,
	when compared to networks that do not include per-flow identification.
	The security implications of disclosing that additional information
	deserve consideration when implementing this deadline specification.
    </t>
    <t>
	Because of the requirement of precise time synchronization, the
	accuracy, availability, and integrity of time synchronization is of
	critical importance.  Extensive discussion of this topic can be found
	in <xref target="RFC7384"/>.  
    </t>
	<!--
	Lijo : Added above paragraphs
    -->
</section>	<!-- End of section "Security Considerations" -->

<section title="Acknowledgements">
    <t>
	The authors thank Pascal Thubert for suggesting the idea and
	encouraging the work. Thanks to Shwetha Bhandari's suggestions which
	were instrumental in extending the timing information to heterogeneous
	networks. The authors acknowledge the 6TiSCH WG members for their
	inputs on the mailing list.  Special thanks to
		Jerry Daniel,
		Dan Frost (Routing Directorate)
		Charlie Kaufman (Security Directorate)
		Seema Kumar,
		Tal Mizrahi
		Avinash Mohan,
		Shalu Rajendran,
		Anita Varghese,
		and Dale Worley (Gen-ART review)
	for their support and valuable feedback.
    </t>
</section>	<!-- End of section "Acknowledgements" -->



</middle>

<back>		<!--  *****BACK MATTER ***** -->
    <!-- References split into informative and normative -->

    <!-- There are 2 ways to insert reference entries from the citation
         libraries:
         1. define an ENTITY at the top, and use "ampersand character" RFC2629;
            here (as shown)
         2. simply use a PI "less than character"?rfc
            include="reference.RFC.2119.xml"?> here
            (for I-Ds:
             include="reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml")

     Both are cited textually in the same manner: by using xref elements.
     If you use the PI option, xml2rfc will, by default, try to find included
     files in the same directory as the including file. You can also define
     the XML_LIBRARY environment variable with a value containing a set of
     directories to search.  These can be either in the local filing system
     or remote ones accessed by http (http://domain/dir/... ).-->

<references title="Normative References">
	<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-6tisch-terminology" ?>
	<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch" ?>
	<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture" ?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.2119'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4944'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5905'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.6282'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.6550'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.6553'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.6554'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.7384'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.7554'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.8138'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.8174'?>
</references>

<references title="Informative References">
	<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture" ?>

<!--
- IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks - Part 15.4, -
IEEE Std 802.15.42015, 2015.

IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Networks," in IEEE Std 802.15.4-2015 (Revision of IEEE Std 802.15.4-2011) , vol., no., pp.1-709, April 22 2016
doi: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.7460875
  -->

      <reference anchor="dot15-tsch">
        <front>
          <title>IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Networks,
		Part 15.4, IEEE Std 802.15.4-2015</title>
          <author surname="P802.11">
            <organization>"IEEE 802 Wireless"</organization>

            <address>
            </address>
          </author>

          <date month="April" year="2016"/>
        </front>
      </reference>


<!--
     @INPROCEEDINGS{Lee02ieee-1588standard,
    author = {Kang Lee and John Eidson},
    title = {IEEE-1588 Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and Control Systems},
    booktitle = {In 34 th Annual Precise Time and Time Interval (PTTI) Meeting},
    year = {2002},
    pages = {98 thru 105}
}
  -->

      <reference anchor="ieee-1588">
        <front>
          <title>IEEE Std 1588-2008 Standard for a Precision Clock
		Synchronization
		Protocol for Networked Measurement and Control Systems</title>

          <author surname="Precise Time and Time Interval Working Group">
            <organization>"IEEE Standards"</organization>

            <address>
            </address>
          </author>

          <date month="July" year="2008"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

	<!--  New: Donald E. Eastlake comments -> dotBLEMesh  . -->
	<!--  Lijo : Is this reference, Okay -->
      <reference anchor="dotBLEMesh">
        <front>
          <title>
		Multi-Hop Real-Time Communications Over Bluetooth Low Energy
		Industrial Wireless Mesh Networks
	  </title>

          <author fullname="Luca Leonardi" initials="L." surname="Leonardi">
            <organization> </organization>
            <address>
	    </address>
          </author>
			
          <author fullname="Gaetano Pattim" initials="G." surname="Pattim">
            <organization> </organization>
            <address>
	    </address>
          </author>
			
          <author fullname="Lucia Lo Bello" initials="L." surname="Lo Bello">
            <organization> </organization>
            <address>
	    </address>
          </author>
			
          <date month="May" year="2018" />
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="IEEE Access"
			value="Vol 6, 26505-26519"/>
	</reference>

	<reference anchor="dot1AS-2011">
        <front>
          <title>IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks -
		Timing and Synchronization for Time-Sensitive Applications
		in Bridged Local Area Networks
	  </title>
          <author surname="IEEE 802.1AS Working Group">
            <organization>"IEEE Standards"</organization>

            <address>
            </address>
          </author>

          <date month="March" year="2011"/>
        </front>
	</reference>

	<reference anchor="Wi-SUN_PHY">
	<front>
	    <title>Wi-SUN PHY Specification V1.0</title>
	    <author>
		<organization>Wi-SUN Alliance</organization>
	    </author>
	    <date month="March" year="2016"></date>
	</front>
	</reference>

<!--
          <title> Wi-SUN is a wireless communication technology designed for Utilities, Smart Cities and IoT.  Wi-SUN is based on various IEEE, IETF, and NSI/TIA standards supporting low power and lossy networks.</title>
  -->
<!--
	Hiroshi Harada et al,
	"IEEE 802.15.4g Based Wi-SUN Communication Systems",
	IEICE Transactions on Communications.

@article{article,
author = {Harada, Hiroshi and Mizutani, Keiichi and FUJIWARA, Jun and MOCHIZUKI, Kentaro and OBATA, Kentaro and Okumura, Ryota},
year = {2017},
month = {01},
pages = {},
title = {IEEE 802.15.4g based Wi-SUN communication systems},
volume = {E100.B},
booktitle = {IEICE Transactions on Communications}
}
          <author fullname="Luca Leonardi" initials="L." surname="Leonardi">
  -->

	<reference anchor="dotWi-SUN">
        <front>
          <title>IEEE 802.15.4g Based Wi-SUN Communication Systems</title>
          <author fullname="Hiroshi Harada" initials="H." surname="Harada">
            <organization> </organization>
            <address>
	    </address>
          </author>
			
          <author fullname="Keiichi Mizutani" initials="K." surname="Mizutani">
            <organization> </organization>
            <address>
	    </address>
          </author>

          <author fullname="Jun Fujiwara" initials="J." surname="Fujiwara">
            <organization> </organization>
            <address>
	    </address>
          </author>
			
          <author fullname="Kentaro Mochizuki" initials="K."
							surname="Mochizuki">
            <organization> </organization>
            <address>
	    </address>
          </author>
			
          <author fullname="Kentaro Obata" initials="K." surname="Obata">
            <organization> </organization>
            <address>
	    </address>
          </author>
			
          <author fullname="Ryota Okumura" initials="R." surname="Okumura">
            <organization> </organization>
            <address>
	    </address>
          </author>

          <date month="Jan" year="2017"/>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="IEICE Transactions on Communications"
			value="volume E100.B"/>
      </reference>

	<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data" ?>
	<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases" ?>
	<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router" ?>
	<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-roll-useofrplinfo" ?>
	<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-6lo-blemesh" ?>
</references>


<section title="Changes from revision 04 to revision 05"
	anchor="changes_04_05">
  <t>
    This section lists the changes between draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time
	revisions ...-04.txt and ...-05.txt.
    <list style="symbols">
    <t>
	Included additional relevant material in Security Considerations
	regarding expected deployment scenarios and the effect of
	disclosing additional information during the travel of a packet.
    </t>
    <t>
	Reworked the specification for using time ranges shorter than the
	maximum allowed by the choice of TU, so that fewer bits are needed
	to represent DT and OT.
    </t>
    <t>
	Revised the figures and examples to use new parameters
    </t>
    <t>
	Reordered the field definitions for the Deadline-6LoRHE.
    </t>
    <t>
	Responded to numerous reviewer comments to improve terminology
	and editorial consistency.
    </t>
  </list></t>
</section>  <!-- End of section "Changes from revision 04 to revision 05" -->


<section title="Changes from revision 03 to revision 04"
	anchor="changes_03_04">

  <t>
    This section lists the changes between draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time
	revisions ...-03.txt and ...-04.txt.
    <list style="symbols">
    <t>
	Replaced OT (Origination Time) field by OTD (Origination Time
	Delta), allowing a more compressed representation that needs
	less processing during transitions between networks.
    </t>
    <t>
        Changed representation for DTL, OTL, DT, OTD.  Eliminated
	EXP in favor of BinaryPt.
    </t>
    <t>
	Revised the figures and examples to use new parameters
    </t>
    <t>
	Added new section on Synchronization Aspects to supply pertinent
	information about how nodes agree on the meaning of t=0.
    </t>
    <t>
	Responded to numerous reviewer comments to improve editorial
	consistency and improve terminology.
    </t>
  </list></t>
</section>  <!-- End of section "Changes from revision 03 to revision 04" -->


<section title="Changes from revision 02 to revision 03"
	anchor="changes_02_03">

  <t>
    This section lists the changes between draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time
	revisions ...-02.txt and ...-03.txt.
    <list style="symbols">
    <t>
        Added non-normative 6LoRHE description, citing RFC 8138.
    </t>
    <t>
        Specified that the Origination Time (OT) is the time that packet
	is enqueued for transmission.
    </t>
    <t>
        Mentioned more sources of packet delay.
    </t>
    <t>
        Clarified reasons that packet MAY be forwarded if 'D' bit is 0.
    </t>
    <t>
        Clarified that DT, OT, DTL and OTL are unsigned integers.
    </t>
    <t>
        Updated bibliographic citations, including BLEmesh and Wi-SUN.
    </t>
  </list></t>
</section>  <!-- End of section "Changes from revision 02 to revision 03" -->


<section title="Changes from revision 01 to revision 02"
	anchor="changes_01_02">

  <t>
    This section lists the changes between draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time
	revisions ...-01.txt and ...-02.txt.
    <list style="symbols">
    <t>
        Replaced 6LoRHE description by reference to RFC 8138.
    </t>

    <t>
        Added figure to illustrate change to Origination Time when a
	packet crosses timezone boundaries.
    </t>

    <t>
        Clarified that use of 6tisch networks is descriptive, not normative.
    </t>

    <t>
        Clarified that In-Band OAM is used as an example and is not normative.
    </t>

    <t>
        Updated bibliographic citations.
    </t>

    <t>
        Alphabetized contributor names.
    </t>

  </list></t>
</section>  <!-- End of section "Changes from revision 01 to revision 02" -->

<section title="Changes between earlier versions"
	anchor="older_changes">

  <t>
      This section lists the changes between draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time
	revisions ...-00.txt and ...-01.txt.
    <list style="symbols">
    <t>
        Changed "SHOULD drop" to "MUST drop" a packet if the deadline is
	passed (see <xref target="Format"/>).
    </t>

    <t>
        Added explanatory text about how packet delays might arise.
	(see <xref target="Description"/>).
    </t>

    <t>
        Mentioned availability of time-synchronization protocols
	(see <xref target="Intro"/>).
    </t>

    <t>
        Updated bibliographic citations.
    </t>

    <t>
        Alphabetized contributor names.
    </t>

    <t>
        Added this section.
    </t>

  </list></t>
</section>

</back>
</rfc>
