Re: [6lo] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13: (with DISCUSS)

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

I am no longer on the IESG. I will trust the SEC ADs to handle this.

-Ekr


On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 1:00 AM 최영환 <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello Eric and all,
>
> Thanks for your valuable reviews.
> Please find my answers inline.
>
> BRs,
> Younghwan Choi
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eric Rescorla via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 1:20 PM
> > To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]; Carles Gomez
> > <[e-mail]>; Samita Chakrabarti <[e-mail]>;
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13: (with
> > DISCUSS)
> >
> > Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13: 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/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/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCUSS:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I am unable to adequately review this document because the first
> > normative reference and hence this DISCUSS is incomplete (ordinarily
> > this would conflict with the DISCUSS guidelines, but I believe it is
> > necessary in this case).
> >
> >    [LLCP-1.3]
> >               "NFC Logical Link Control Protocol version 1.3", NFC Forum
> >               Technical Specification , March 2016.
> >
> > Does not appear to be publicly available (the web site contains a
> > single- page PDF which reads in part "To view the complete
> > specification, go to
> > http://nfc-forum.org/our-
> > work/specifications-and-application-documents/specifications/nfc-forum
> > - technical-specifications/. Complete the license agreement, and then
> > download the specification."). Please supply an unencumbered
> > specification and then I can rereview.
>
> The specification, LLCP-1.3, is not free of charge. I also bought it. I
> have no idea to supply unencumbered specification about that. If so, I need
> to remove the reference [LLCP-1.3] in section 9.1.
>
> >
> > I have read S 3.4 repeatedly, but am unable to work out the mapping of
> > an
> > IPv6 datagram to LLCP. Please provide a diagram that shows how this
> > works and then perhaps I can assist you with the text.
> >
> >
>
> Section 3.4 has the original intention to introduce how MTU of NFC Data
> Link is extendable. So, the figure 2 shows LLCP's option field for the
> extension. When two NFC devices start to connect with each other with LLCP,
> they has an option whether they extend its MTU size or not. I think
> exchanging the option field like figure 2 between two NFC devices is quite
> simple. One thing that Benjamin pointed and I agreed is that the value of
> the figure 2 must be mentioned with 0x480(this is a size of extension to
> cover MTU of IPv6, 1280) in the section 3.2. So I will put this in the next
> draft.
> Please refer to my response on the Benjamin's DISCUSS.
>