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

[최영환 <[e-mail]>]

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.