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

최영환 <yhc@etri.re.kr> Fri, 07 June 2019 01:36 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 0FA7912015E for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 18:36:07 -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 rwYFC3VCfbJV for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 18:36:04 -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 C5065120159 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 18:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown (HELO smtpeg.etri.re.kr) (129.254.27.141) by 129.254.9.16 with ESMTP; 7 Jun 2019 10:35:57 +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, noreply@ietf.org, 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 10:36:01 +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 10:35:57 +0900
From: =?utf-8?B?7LWc7JiB7ZmY?= <yhc@etri.re.kr>
To: =?utf-8?B?TWlyamEgS8O8aGxld2luZCB2aWEgRGF0YXRyYWNrZXI=?= <noreply@ietf.org>, 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>, "carlesgo@entel.upc.edu" <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: =?utf-8?B?TWlyamEgS8O8aGxld2luZCdzIE5vIE9iamVjdGlvbiBvbiBkcmFmdC1pZXRm?= =?utf-8?Q?-6lo-nfc-13:_(with_COMMENT)?=
Thread-Index: AQHU2aOeiTTHrr5PJUecOXUUogWqPqaLhnUw
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 01:35:56 +0000
Message-ID: <B2C0C4C29044814AB285BBB7C754D9249AC9ED09@SMTP2.etri.info>
References: <155248496919.27828.10433234865223953092.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <155248496919.27828.10433234865223953092.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="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/q9ymjMwWDWEAIRtdCx5Dd9gBHsI>
Subject: Re: [6lo] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-i?= =?utf-8?q?etf-6lo-nfc-13=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
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 01:36:07 -0000

Hello Mirja and all,

Thanks for your valuable reviews.
Please find my answers inline.

BRs,
Younghwan Choi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 10:49 PM
> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: draft-ietf-6lo-nfc@ietf.org; Carles Gomez <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>du>;
> Samita Chakrabarti <samitac.ietf@gmail.com>om>; 6lo-chairs@ietf.org;
> carlesgo@entel.upc.edu; 6lo@ietf.org
> 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.