Re: [6lo] Review Request for ipv6-over-nfc-07

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <> Thu, 15 June 2017 10:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5DBE129B28; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 03:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JpNHb0R1GXhj; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 03:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FFFE126B7E; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 03:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=28080; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1497523411; x=1498733011; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=rSgbWSnYa15XB/t2vO0vVWLb0g6oWmFLgAUt8TxkWXU=; b=MG+CS0HQBMscFzhdetCcZFppYxh+TklFkhmSeIA+9691bToYiN5m4oj5 ibMOOFsuHCOCoSSLscvavHO1tB0WrCaxy/ppeVbBWsnnVySUdZlm3K9pc Ds0lPKNNthBzxacbrV1dcHMNwTFxyQfXfMZZyewjGP8dVThea8bfMwFxw M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,343,1493683200"; d="scan'208,217";a="256269393"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 15 Jun 2017 10:43:29 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5FAhTAf006904 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 15 Jun 2017 10:43:29 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 05:43:29 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 05:43:28 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <>
To: Samita Chakrabarti <>, Dave Thaler <>, =?utf-8?B?7LWc7JiB7ZmY?= <>, "" <>, lo <>
CC: James Woodyatt <>
Thread-Topic: Review Request for ipv6-over-nfc-07
Thread-Index: AQHS3loN/iWZqtVOG062WoVNE/lOSqIlxlEg
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 10:43:28 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 10:42:52 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_62cc094156074e1ba96abc761e89e7a0XCHRCD001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Review Request for ipv6-over-nfc-07
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 10:43:34 -0000

Dear authors ;

Thanks for incorporating a nonce in the computation of the privacy address. This addresses my concern. It would have been good to insist that you are doing it in the security section as well, but the text there confirms that the address is not repeated on the next connection so we should be all set. Also in the security section, I’m not sure what to do with this text:


   However, malicious tries for one connection of a long-lived link with
   NFC technology are not secure, so the method of deriving interface
   identifiers from 6-bit NFC Link layer addresses is intended to
   preserve global uniqueness when it is possible.  Therefore, it
   requires a way to protect from duplication through accident or
  forgery and to define a way to include sufficient bit of entropy in
   the IPv6 interface identifier, such as random EUI-64.

I fail to understand the first sentence and the paragraph reads as a problem statement, but for what?  Seems that section 4.3 does now provide the required entropy, correct?

About section 4.5, I think some more text could be useful to assign the role of 6LBR.
If 2 similar devices meet (say 2 handeheld), whether one is 6LR/LBR. How would that be decided?
When they are different, if there is a fixed device (a payment terminal, say) or provides connectivity as a router, then it makes sense that it is 6LBR.
This could be described so we would not end up with 2 devices that cannot talk because they only do 6LN.



From: Samita Chakrabarti []
Sent: mardi 6 juin 2017 02:16
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <>om>; Dave Thaler <>om>; 최영환 <>kr>;; lo <>
Cc: James Woodyatt <>
Subject: Review Request for ipv6-over-nfc-07

Hello Dave, Pascal, James and WG members:

ipv6-over-nfc-07 has just been published and the author mentions that he had addressed the comments from Pascal and Dave.

 Pascal and Dave,  would you please have sometime to review version 07 to check if your comments are addressed?

I have appended the excerpt from IETF98 meeting minutes for your reference.
This document is due for WG LC if  it looks okay.

James, you are shepherd for NFC draft -- please let us know if you are okay with the document's next step.


As per IETF98 meeting minutes:

2 IPv6 over NFC                                    Younghwan Choi was presented by Younghawn Choi on updates and
  discussed comments from WG and NFC forum. The draft was reviewed by NFC forum, no more comments
  from NFC forum. The author likes to move to WGLC.

  Dave Thaler:IID generation changed as a result of previous meeting

  Pascal: Replacing 6 bit address with hashing function with fixed parameters. Scanning is still
  easy. How is it different?
  YC: offset. Dave: offset should be random to add entropy, not predictable.
  Gabriel: offset may not be a right name. Nonce would be better.
  Samita: need reviewers before WGLC. Pascal, Dave, would you volunteer?
  Pascal will do the review and Dave agreed to review the final update.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: 최영환 <<>>
Date: Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 5:02 PM
Subject: RE: [6lo] Request for IETF99@Prague 6lo Agenda items
To: Samita Chakrabarti <<>>
Cc: Gabriel Montenegro <<>>

Hello Samita,

I’ve submitted the new version of ipv6-over-nfc (-07). The document is ready for review.

Best regards,
Younghwan Choi