Re: [6lo] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13: (with COMMENT)
최영환 <yhc@etri.re.kr> Fri, 07 June 2019 08:08 UTC
Return-Path: <yhc@etri.re.kr>
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 1979112008D for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 01:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 FdcKXaUSLGQl for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 01:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mscreen.etri.re.kr (mscreen.etri.re.kr [129.254.9.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F00D11200FF for <6lo@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 01:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown (HELO smtpeg.etri.re.kr) (129.254.27.141) by 129.254.9.16 with ESMTP; 7 Jun 2019 17:01:58 +0900
X-Original-SENDERIP: 129.254.27.141
X-Original-MAILFROM: yhc@etri.re.kr
X-Original-RCPTTO: samitac.ietf@gmail.com, 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, 6lo@ietf.org, carlesgo@entel.upc.edu, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6lo-nfc@ietf.org
Received: from SMTP5.etri.info (129.254.28.75) by SMTPEG1.etri.info (129.254.27.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 17:02:02 +0900
Received: from SMTP2.etri.info ([169.254.2.250]) by SMTP5.etri.info ([169.254.5.142]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 17:01:59 +0900
From: 최영환 <yhc@etri.re.kr>
To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, 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>
Thread-Topic: Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHU2dp5P6fY7ydUu0GJNXDJ0LczXqaNJQFwgAM1z5A=
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2019 08:01:59 +0000
Message-ID: <B2C0C4C29044814AB285BBB7C754D9249AC9F23E@SMTP2.etri.info>
References: <155250853613.24902.16265554591912159081.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: ko-KR, en-US
Content-Language: ko-KR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [129.254.170.124]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ks_c_5601-1987"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/n79ybp2k_CvaCg-NWT6G73SX-Ns>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13: (with 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: Fri, 07 Jun 2019 08:08:48 -0000
Hello Alexey and all, Thanks for your valuable reviews. Please find my answers inline. BRs, Younghwan Choi > -----Original Message----- > From: Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 5:22 AM > To: 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; carlesgo@entel.upc.edu; 6lo@ietf.org > Subject: Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13: > (with > COMMENT) > > Alexey Melnikov 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: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I agree with Benjamin about antenna size. Despite that I have enjoyed > reading this document. I have some questions/comments that I would > like to discuss before recommending publication of this document as an RFC: Thanks. Please refer to the answers about Benjamin's DISCUSS (about antenna). > > In 3.2: > > The LLCP consists of Logical Link Control (LLC) and MAC Mapping. The > MAC Mapping integrates an existing RF protocol into the LLCP > architecture. The LLC contains three components, such as Link > Management, Connection-oriented Transmission, and Connection-less > Transmission. The Link Management component is responsible for > serializing all connection-oriented and connection-less LLC PDU > (Protocol Data Unit) exchanges and for aggregation and disaggregation > of small PDUs. This component also guarantees asynchronous balanced > mode communication and provides link status supervision by performing > the symmetry procedure. > > Can you translate the last sentence for somebody who is not an expert > in this? > Agreed with your point. I think the last sentence, "This component also guarantees asynchronous balanced [...] the symmetry procedure.", is not really helpful for understanding IPv6 over NFC. I would rather get rid of this last sentence. Thanks for your comment. > In 4.4: > > The tool for a 6LBR to obtain an IPv6 prefix for numbering the NFC > network is can be accomplished via DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation > > I think "is" before "can be" should be deleted above. Thanks a lot. I will fix it. > > ([RFC3633]). > > In 4.5: > > o When two or more NFC 6LNs(or 6LRs) meet, there are two cases. One > is that three or more NFC devices are linked with multi-hop > connections, and the other is that they meet within a single hop > range (e.g., isolated network). In a case of multi-hops, all of > 6LNs, which have two or more connections with different neighbors, > MAY be a router for 6LR/6LBR. In a case that they meet within a > single hop and they have the same properties, any of them can be a > router. When the NFC nodes are not of uniform category (e.g., > different MTU, level of remaining energy, connectivity, etc.), a > performance-outstanding device can become a router. > > The last sentence: how can 2 NFC nodes figure out which one has higher > level or remaining energy, etc? Benjamin also pointed out this. I agree with his opinion. I am going to remove the sentence, " When the NFC nodes are not [...] performance-outstanding device can become a router.". > > In 4.7: > > Therefore, IPv6 header compression in [RFC6282] MUST be implemented. > Further, implementations MAY also support Generic Header Compression > (GHC) of [RFC7400]. > > Will 2 NFC implementations interoperate if one of them supports GHC > and the other one doesn't? If they can't, then "MAY" seems to be too weak here. I will change it with "MUST". > > In 4.8: > > IPv6-over-NFC fragmentation and reassembly (FAR) for the payloads is > NOT RECOMMENDED in this document as discussed in Section 3.4. > > You are using "NOT RECOMMENDED", which is "SHOULD NOT". Why is this > not a "MUST NOT" and why implementation of FAR would be Ok if one node > supports it and another one doesn't? > Agreed. I will change it with "MUST NOT".
- [6lo] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-iet… Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker
- Re: [6lo] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft… 최영환