Re: [6lo] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13: (with COMMENT)

[최영환 <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,

Thanks a lot for your comment.
Please see below.

BRs,
Younghwan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 4:42 PM
> To: 최영환 <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[e-mail]>; The IESG
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; Samita Chakrabarti <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Younghwan,
> 
> Thanks! Please see below for point 3.
> 
> > On 7. Jun 2019, at 03:35, 최영환 <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Mirja and all,
> >
> > Thanks for your valuable reviews.
> > Please find my answers inline.
> >
> > BRs,
> > Younghwan Choi
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 10:49 PM
> >> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: [e-mail]; Carles Gomez
> >> <[e-mail]>; Samita Chakrabarti
> >> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> >> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13:
> >> (with
> >> COMMENT)
> >>
> >> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> >> draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13: No Objection
> >>
> >> 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/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -
> >> COMMENT:
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -
> >>
> >> 1) I agree with Benjamin's discuss point on sec 3.4: there seems to
> >> be a mismatch between the text and the figure that needs to be
> >> resolved or clarified before publication.
> >
> > I agreed with Benjamin's point, so I will change the paragraph for
> clarification. Please refer to my answers for Benjamin's DISCUSS and
> COMMENTS.
> >
> >>
> >> 2)Use of normative language doesn't always seem quite appropriate,
> >> especially SHALL. Benjamin already identified some cases in section 3.3.
> >>
> >> Here is an additional one in sec 4.1:
> >> "The adaptation layer for IPv6 over NFC SHALL support neighbor
> >>   discovery, stateless address auto-configuration, header compression,
> >>   and fragmentation & reassembly."
> >
> > I will get rid of the "SHALL".
> >
> >>
> >> Also this MAY in sec 5.2:
> >> "In an isolated NFC-enabled device network,
> >>   when two or more LRs MAY be connected with each other, and then they
> >>   are acting like routers, the 6LR MUST ensure address collisions do
> >>   not occur."
> >>
> >> Please also check other occurrences.
> >
> > I will change "MAY" with "are". And I will check the others as well.
> >
> >>
> >> 3) I would have expected to see some discussion about the ability to
> >> potentially connect devices over an IP-gateway device to the Internet
> >> that were previously not designed to be connected to the Internet.
> >> However, maybe that's asked too much as that is certainly something
> >> that needs to be addressed by either a higher layer or the device
> >> system architecture as a whole.
> >>
> >
> > I don’t get your point about 3), but IPv6 over NFC is a just protocol
> and can be used for every NFC-enabled device (including IP-Gateway
> devices), which are connected to the Internet.
> 
> If the assumption is that any IPv6 over NFC is only send in secured
> networks, maybe the higher layers are not further protected, and therefore
> a gateway should probably not just take the IPv6 packet and send it out in
> the Internet as is. I wonder if that is something that should be further
> discussed or at least mentioned in the security consideration section.
> 
> Mirja
> 
> 

Now I got your point. I agree with your comment. I will mention your point in section 7 of the next draft (-14).
Thanks so much.