Re: [6lo] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 26 June 2019 01:07 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED6F0120123 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 18:07:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.679
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.679 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lSSBDIynQSvl for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 18:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2171120137 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 18:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MacBook-Pro.roach.at (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x5Q17gl6033306 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Jun 2019 20:07:44 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1561511265; bh=2J3laHTiaOv4PbBKuwMwRHGth326rGqUdpvKPGHsC24=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=nEyqpH2Ae/AhUgMpLELPatTZDdpaFPAs24lor+uJZ7dW+4nJQ17uxR2YiEUK7TdUb t0x77W9Lor9hOkFlFeNQc29QBCuwBrghEoDCkwOuX1B9KVq0Nx8Ij699TCn2wDeaWq LPwPJw89yEkIBq/QV9jgm68LMQ7mboWnV9fTU/kM=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be MacBook-Pro.roach.at
To: 최영환 <yhc@etri.re.kr>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: "draft-ietf-6lo-nfc@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6lo-nfc@ietf.org>, Carles Gomez <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>, Samita Chakrabarti <samitac.ietf@gmail.com>, "6lo-chairs@ietf.org" <6lo-chairs@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
References: <155252186752.24865.11714396679087318312.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <B2C0C4C29044814AB285BBB7C754D9249AC9F20E@SMTP2.etri.info> <66c92b59-1f77-8dc2-36c1-7e9b87fe2b56@nostrum.com> <B2C0C4C29044814AB285BBB7C754D9249ACC9629@SMTP2.etri.info>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <16ccc915-d270-02ec-ab45-05baf260ba5b@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 20:07:38 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B2C0C4C29044814AB285BBB7C754D9249ACC9629@SMTP2.etri.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/VeP3Q_GKvTXeSLuRFmng8bfIjp8>
Subject: Re: [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
Precedence: list
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: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 01:07:47 -0000

On 6/25/19 6:17 PM, 최영환 wrote:
> Dear Adam Roach,
>
> Thanks for your feedback.
> Please find the answer inline bellows.
>
> BRs,
> Younghwan
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 2:06 AM
>> To: 최영환 <yhc@etri.re.kr>; 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;
>> 6lo@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13: (with DISCUSS
>> and COMMENT)
>>
>> Sorry for the relatively slow response. Comments inline.
>>
>> On 6/7/19 3:01 AM, 최영환 wrote:
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -
>>>> 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.)
>>> Agreed. I will fix it.
>>>
>>>> The presence of "a stable IPv6 address" inherently implies the
>>>> ability to track devices.
>>> Agreed. I will change them with "a secured and stable IPv6 address".
>> This is ok?
>>
>>
>> I don't think this changes the issue. Your response below implies that the
>> address is stable only over very short periods of time, and that would
>> address my concern. If that's true, then the solution would be to add text
>> here that qualifies how long the address is stable (e.g.:
>> "...such an IID should guarantee a stable IPv6 address during the course
>> of a single connection, because...")
>>
> I got it. I will put  the text. Thanks for your comment again.


Thanks! I'll clear my discuss once the new version is submitted.

/a