[6lo] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13: (with COMMENT)

Warren Kumari via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 14 March 2019 08:24 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietf.org
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E82A81277DB; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 01:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Warren Kumari via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
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, bill.wu@huawei.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.94.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Message-ID: <155255185094.2671.15731799736877181880.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 01:24:10 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/qV_DT_DHpIXNnRskPEzXa6Fwu-0>
Subject: [6lo] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 08:24:11 -0000

Warren Kumari 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 apologize - I've read the document, but it doesn't seem like it contains
enough information to allow a full implementation.

The document keeps talking about the fact that the range is limited to 10cm,
and makes some security assertions from this - from the little that I
understand about this technology (and I wasn't able to follow all the
references), ISO 15693 tags using NDEF are now part of the NFC specification -
these  work up to 1M. I have no idea if this protocol is supposed to work over
that, but if so, 1M is greater than 10cm.

Also, I see you did respond to the OpsDir review (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-6lo-nfc-12-opsdir-lc-wu-2018-12-19/
-- thank you very much, Qin) , but there are things in these which don't seem
fully addressed. As an example, Qin asked: ----
 Section 3.4 said ” the MTU size in NFC LLCP MUST be calculated from the MIU
   value as follows:
                             MIU = 128 + MIUX.”
Can you provide formula to calculate MTU from MIU? Not clear how MTU is related
to MIU? ---

You responded: "YH >> Actually, MIU is the same as MTU. Specifications in NFC
forum use 'MIU', and we use 'MTU'. But these two has the same meaning."

I read version 13 of this document and had the exact same question -- how do I
calculate the MTU from the MIU? If they really are the same thing (which I'm
not sure they are), the document should state that, so readers can more easily
implement.