[6lo] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-19: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-19

CC @larseggert

## Discuss

### Section 9, paragraph 2
```
     [LLCP-1.4] "NFC Logical Link Control Protocol, Version 1.4", NFC
                Forum Technical Specification , January 2021.
```
Eric raised this for -13 in 2019 already: this specification does not
seem to be publicly available? Did the NFC forum share a copy with
the IETF WG that you could forward to the IESG for our review?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

## Comments

### Section 3.4, paragraph 7
```
     When the MIUX parameter is used, the TLV Type field MUST be 0x02 and
     the TLV Length field MUST be 0x02.  The MIUX parameter MUST be
     encoded into the least significant 11 bits of the TLV Value field.
     The unused bits in the TLV Value field MUST be set to zero by the
     sender and ignored by the receiver.
```
Figure 2 shows that the V field is split into 4 bits and 12 bits, not
11? Also, the four bits are not zero?

### DOWNREFs

DOWNREF `[RFC3756]` from this Proposed Standard to Informational `RFC3756`.
(For IESG discussion. It seems this DOWNREF was not mentioned in the Last Call
and also seems to not appear in the DOWNREF registry.)

### Inclusive language

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

 * Term `man`; alternatives might be `individual`, `people`, `person`

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Section 3.1, paragraph 1
```
-    is used for IPv6 over NFC.
-    ^^
+    MUST be used for IPv6 over NFC.
+    ^^^^^^^
```

### Outdated references

Reference `[RFC3633]` to `RFC3633`, which was obsoleted by `RFC8415` (this may
be on purpose).

### Grammar/style

#### Section 4.2, paragraph 4
```
pology. NFC supports mesh topologies but most of all applications would use a
                                    ^^^^
```
Use a comma before "but" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they
are closely connected and short).

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool