[6lo] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Adam Roach via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 14 March 2019 00:04 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietf.org
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 820B11228B7; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 17:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Adam Roach via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-6lo-nfc@ietf.org, Carles Gomez <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>, Samita Chakrabarti <samitac.ietf@gmail.com>, 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, carlesgo@entel.upc.edu, 6lo@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.94.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <155252186752.24865.11714396679087318312.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 17:04:27 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/BD1wKV5iz07Umy5gEd2p_gj9MAI>
Subject: [6lo] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 00:04:27 -0000
Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13: 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-nfc/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to everyone who has worked on this document. I generally agree with Benjamin's discuss points, and in particular agree with his comment that it's kind of hard to figure out how all these pieces work together. I have an additional issue that is somewhat related to some of the points he raised, but which is (I think) not completely covered. I'm really confused about what the purported privacy properties of this protocol are. In section 4.3 (which I *think* talks about globally-routable IP addresses, although this is a bit unclear), the document says: such an IID SHOULD guarantee a stable IPv6 address because each data link connection is uniquely identified by the pair of DSAP and SSAP included in the header of each LLC PDU in NFC (Aside: this "should" is a simple statement of fact, not a described behavior of the protocol, and so the use of RFC-2119-style all-caps is not appropriate.) The presence of "a stable IPv6 address" inherently implies the ability to track devices. Then, in section 7, I find the following text: ...the short address of NFC link layer (LLC) is not generated as a physically permanent value but logically generated for each connection. Thus, every single touch connection can use a different short address of NFC link with an extremely short-lived link. This text seems to imply that addressing information is, in general, not stable, which appears to flatly contradict the text in section 4.3. Please clarify, in section 4.3, what the duration of stability of these identifiers is. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ID Nits reports: == Unused Reference: 'RFC4291' is defined on line 697, but no explicit reference was found in the text --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §1: > IPv6 is an ideal internet > protocols owing to its large address space Nit: "protocol"
- [6lo] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-… Adam Roach via Datatracker
- Re: [6lo] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-… 최영환
- Re: [6lo] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-… Adam Roach
- Re: [6lo] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-… 최영환
- Re: [6lo] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-… Adam Roach
- Re: [6lo] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-… 최영환