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

[최영환 <[e-mail]>]

Dear Adam Roach,

I am going to produce a new version of the draft (-14) this week.
Thanks again.

BRs,
Younghwan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Roach <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 10:08 AM
> To: 최영환 <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; Carles Gomez <[e-mail]>;
> Samita Chakrabarti <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13: (with DISCUSS
> and COMMENT)
> 
> 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 <[e-mail]>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 2:06 AM
> >> To: 최영환 <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: [e-mail]; Carles Gomez
> >> <[e-mail]>; Samita Chakrabarti
> >> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >> 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