Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9354 <draft-ietf-6lo-plc-11> for your review
Yong-Geun Hong <yonggeun.hong@gmail.com> Mon, 09 January 2023 04:20 UTC
Return-Path: <yonggeun.hong@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15E1EC14CE24; Sun, 8 Jan 2023 20:20:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URI_WP_DIRINDEX=1] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u5gReb81CjFW; Sun, 8 Jan 2023 20:20:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x134.google.com (mail-lf1-x134.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::134]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24947C14EB1E; Sun, 8 Jan 2023 20:20:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x134.google.com with SMTP id y25so11152894lfa.9; Sun, 08 Jan 2023 20:20:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=cB152vrWVRnA0nyoavAc1TDNleMlMZ6+l8ew7E0VfQY=; b=XTDPwaRbeV2Kdg3B6UBNTEK/9orykpyb5hMqey40fmcJH50EwO+7cnW7HCsJvNqNPM gqqnCnooiMP/BmDjANGnXdN0tfs9yllZl1LijbNzOL7Zwrz8O5Twk0SZUVyRqNMYedDl uIJi+VjR/dPWNoDARzripBGtXByZQVpUb5VVlapCcU6S/EEGHY8LmSBON0rxzB5kuV1y 0pEdX6ritmkp12oQQnsVUpLa9MrR/hlTef2IJMAH9A99Q1NYZ6uRf6aukoibmSoGDE9w n6sdXhUpYGbASYJgttyMfpS105sPwXLipnJYZ0Qn70IMUYhrYggiPXBGqFgPFmNRF5AB oY5g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=cB152vrWVRnA0nyoavAc1TDNleMlMZ6+l8ew7E0VfQY=; b=29L3dMoaF4AWE9M6P5pV9t/vTSb3GegriWL25qhR8IUtgqMpL8Jl4Vw2XOFWMgE10F NYZy4DJaSMPL5MFkndYkCZzEsxVrVffhwRjet/9qB1+rWaSfvzWkNBjIMOpYxkmrGUpv DHSPAbZRa+9W0IOMZGggvzNdXP7mjJFeYrikcFdQw95nP1hB5+dB2PpJ/DRtb/5Da6gB ra1K75h7+FNKszyQ6TFnGZsdQVGGCn7QwDY6zbeu7mLVueovyStdFq2PkUzjaH/MY7AO FR4VT0/YPFwO+N7cICvXvKecekIk+nR9e9IUV5baRyu0UbYvpDz84WUILRYz7KRakfTs s1Nw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2krYXKseH3hkJfQ+7oRCofU2yCn+ySKhCXxKyQ6Pr7bhplk1ileP 76MPl+xBL3Zlr4/O7O3RG08N6tcr8C6XTdRQMMo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXtZ/T+wMacB7NaRMOgKCTFIY+kj92wzcpB1PWCL/RddLmC+92YwlASA70UOE7ba7IhQ3E8BnKrX6uLLHlT8ZSA=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:5201:0:b0:4b6:f41c:58c7 with SMTP id m1-20020a195201000000b004b6f41c58c7mr6762822lfb.433.1673238010705; Sun, 08 Jan 2023 20:20:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221223202304.9ACD1563C7@rfcpa.amsl.com> <4f8a36025d28455a8172b989ed53957f@huawei.com> <B31BE97F-B27F-4E91-ABC7-73A841FECDA6@amsl.com> <cc843722b86e48a7bbc1c10cfbd186f7@huawei.com> <1C961B0C-63E4-4DEE-BBA9-2F33AEDFD36B@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <1C961B0C-63E4-4DEE-BBA9-2F33AEDFD36B@amsl.com>
From: Yong-Geun Hong <yonggeun.hong@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2023 13:19:58 +0900
Message-ID: <CACt2foEtH+vtToThxYQ3RBJV+y2y-22NitHDpsAR8GyvkcH7QQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com>
Cc: "Houjianqiang (Derek)" <houjianqiang@huawei.com>, "rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "Liubing (Remy)" <remy.liubing@huawei.com>, "itc@sgepri.sgcc.com.cn" <itc@sgepri.sgcc.com.cn>, "charliep@computer.org" <charliep@computer.org>, "6lo-ads@ietf.org" <6lo-ads@ietf.org>, "6lo-chairs@ietf.org" <6lo-chairs@ietf.org>, "carlesgo@entel.upc.edu" <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>, "ek.ietf@gmail.com" <ek.ietf@gmail.com>, "auth48archive@rfc-editor.org" <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000040bb5d05f1cd159a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/1oNjPqX6cBQFI3on16lkLemf5lY>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9354 <draft-ietf-6lo-plc-11> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2023 04:20:18 -0000
Dears. I agree with all the modifications and approve this RFC for publication. Thanks for your efforts. Yong-Geun. 2023년 1월 7일 (토) 오전 3:07, Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com>님이 작성: > Hi, Derek. > > We have further updated this document per your notes below. > > The latest files are posted here (reminder that the erroneous "RFC > Publisher" entries in the References sections are a known and reported bug > that should be fixed shortly): > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354-rfcdiff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354-lastdiff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354-lastrfcdiff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354-xmldiff1.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354-xmldiff2.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354-alt-diff.html > > We have noted your approval (dated today) on the AUTH48 status page: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9354 > > Thank you again for your help! > > RFC Editor/lb > > > > On Jan 6, 2023, at 2:23 AM, Houjianqiang (Derek) < > houjianqiang@huawei.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Lynne and editors, > > > > Thank you for taking my comments and updating the draft. And regarding > your follow-up comments, please see my feedback as below: > > > > = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = > > > > Would you like to use alphanumeric order ("6lo" before "6LoWPAN" and > "RA" before "RPL")? > > > > ///Derek: Yes, it's better to use alphanumeric order. Thanks! > > > > = = = = = = = = > > > > Would this text convey your intended meaning? > > > > IPv6 header compression in PLC is based on [RFC6282] (which updates > [RFC4944]). [RFC6282] specifies the compression format for IPv6 datagrams > on top of IEEE 802.15.4; therefore, this format is used for compression of > IPv6 datagrams within PLC MAC frames. > > > > ///Derek: Yes, this text looks good to me. > > > > = = = = = = = = > > > > We would like further clarification for this text, which we see twice in > Section 4.5. Does "the 16-bit short address to the IID mapping" intend to > say "the mapping between the 16-bit short address and the IID", "the 16-bit > short address to the IID mapping", or something else? (We ask because we > are not sure that "IID mapping" is the correct term here.) > > > > Possibly: > > Any IID bits not covered by > > context information are taken directly from their corresponding bits in > the mapping between the 16-bit short address and the IID as provided by > 0000:00ff:fe00:0XXX, where 0XXX are the 16 bits carried inline, in which > the first 4 bits are zero. > > > > If the "Possibly" text is incorrect, we will update per the "Perhaps" > text. Please advise. > > > > ///Derek: the "Possibly" text is correct, thanks! > > > > = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = > > > > Thank you for your valuable comments and support! > > > > Kind regards, > > Derek > > > > -----邮件原件----- > > 发件人: Lynne Bartholomew [mailto:lbartholomew@amsl.com] > > 发送时间: 2023年1月5日 7:13 > > 收件人: Houjianqiang (Derek) <houjianqiang@huawei.com> > > 抄送: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org; Liubing (Remy) <remy.liubing@huawei.com>; > yonggeun.hong@gmail.com; itc@sgepri.sgcc.com.cn; charliep@computer.org; > 6lo-ads@ietf.org; 6lo-chairs@ietf.org; carlesgo@entel.upc.edu; > ek.ietf@gmail.com; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > > 主题: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9354 <draft-ietf-6lo-plc-11> for your review > > > > Hi, Derek. Happy New Year to you and your colleagues as well! > > > > Thank you for your reply. We have updated this document per your notes > below. > > > > Some follow-up questions for you: > > > > We see that the list of acronyms and terms in Section 2 is mostly in > alphanumeric order. Would you like to use alphanumeric order ("6lo" before > "6LoWPAN" and "RA" before "RPL")? > > > > = = = = = = = = > > > > Regarding this question and your reply: > > > >>> 16) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify "refers to" in the first sentence > >>> below. Is this sentence saying the same thing as the sentence that > follows? > >>> > >>> Original: > >>> The compression of IPv6 datagrams within PLC MAC frames refers to > >>> [RFC6282], which updates [RFC4944]. Header compression as defined in > >>> [RFC6282] which specifies the compression format for IPv6 datagrams > >>> on top of IEEE 802.15.4, is the basis for IPv6 header compression in > >>> PLC. > >>> --> > >> ///Derek: Yes, this "refer to" sentence saying the same thing as the > sentence that follows. > > > > > > Would this text convey your intended meaning? > > > > IPv6 header compression in PLC is based on [RFC6282] (which updates > [RFC4944]). [RFC6282] specifies the compression format for IPv6 datagrams > on top of IEEE 802.15.4; therefore, this format is used for compression of > IPv6 datagrams within PLC MAC frames. > > > > = = = = = = = = > > > > Regarding this question and your reply: > > > >> 18) <!-- [rfced] Please review "in the 16-bit to IID mapping". Should > >> this read "in the 16-bit short address to the IDD mapping" or something > else? > >> > >> Original: > >> Any IID bits not covered by > >> context information are taken directly from their corresponding > >> bits in the 16-bit to IID mapping given by 0000:00ff:fe00:0XXX, > >> where 0XXX are the 16 bits carried in-line, in which the first > >> 4 bits are zero. > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> Any IID bits not covered by > >> context information are taken directly from their corresponding > >> bits in the 16-bit short address to the IID mapping given by > >> 0000:00ff:fe00:0XXX, where 0XXX are the 16 bits carried inline, > >> in which the first 4 bits are zero. > >> --> > >>> ///Derek: I am OK with this change. Thanks > > > > > > We would like further clarification for this text, which we see twice in > Section 4.5. Does "the 16-bit short address to the IID mapping" intend to > say "the mapping between the 16-bit short address and the IID", "the 16-bit > short address to the IID mapping", or something else? (We ask because we > are not sure that "IID mapping" is the correct term here.) > > > > Possibly: > > Any IID bits not covered by > > context information are taken directly from their corresponding bits in > the mapping between the 16-bit short address and the IID as provided by > 0000:00ff:fe00:0XXX, where 0XXX are the 16 bits carried inline, in which > the first 4 bits are zero. > > > > If the "Possibly" text is incorrect, we will update per the "Perhaps" > text. Please advise. > > > > = = = = = = = = > > > > The latest files are posted below (please refresh your browser). > > *Please note* that we are aware of the erroneous "RFC Publisher" entries > in the References sections; this bug has been reported. > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354.txt > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354.pdf > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354.xml > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354-diff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354-rfcdiff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354-auth48diff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354-lastdiff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354-lastrfcdiff.html > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354-xmldiff1.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354-xmldiff2.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354-alt-diff.html > > > > Because we still have some pending questions for you, we will note your > approval after the remaining questions are resolved. > > > > Thanks again! > > > > RFC Editor/lb > > > > > >> On Jan 2, 2023, at 1:22 AM, Houjianqiang (Derek) <houjianqiang= > 40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Erik and editors, > >> > >> Happy new year! > >> Thanks for your valuable comments and questions. The polished version > looks good to me, and I give a "pass". For details please see my response > in line. > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> Derek > >> > >> -----邮件原件----- > >> 发件人: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org [mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org] > >> 发送时间: 2022年12月24日 4:23 > >> 收件人: Houjianqiang (Derek) <houjianqiang@huawei.com>; Liubing (Remy) > >> <remy.liubing@huawei.com>; yonggeun.hong@gmail.com; > >> itc@sgepri.sgcc.com.cn; charliep@computer.org > >> 抄送: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org; 6lo-ads@ietf.org; 6lo-chairs@ietf.org; > >> carlesgo@entel.upc.edu; ek.ietf@gmail.com; > >> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > >> 主题: [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9354 <draft-ietf-6lo-plc-11> for your > >> review > >> > >> Authors and *AD, > >> > >> *AD, please see question #1 below. > >> > >> Authors, while reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve > (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > >> > >> > >> 1) <!-- [rfced] *AD, please review and approve the text added to the > >> end of the Acknowledgements section (it was added after the document > >> was approved for publication). This added text is best viewed in this > >> diff > >> file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354-alt-diff.html. > >> --> > >> ///Derek: I am OK with the acknowledgements addition. And I agree with > Erik and change "delegating the presentation" to "delivering the > presentation". > >> > >> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been > updated as follows. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC > 7322 (“RFC Style Guide”). Please review. > >> > >> Original: > >> Transmission of IPv6 Packets over PLC Networks > >> > >> Current: > >> Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Power Line Communication (PLC) > >> Networks > >> --> > >> ///Derek: I am OK with this change. > >> > >> 3) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. > >> --> > >> ///Derek: "6lo", "6lowpan", "6lo-plc", "6loplc", "plc" > >> > >> 4) <!-- [rfced] Please review "such as ITU-T G.9903, IEEE 1901.1 and > >> IEEE 1901.2". How may we update for clarity? > >> > >> Original: > >> This document describes how IPv6 packets are > >> transported over constrained PLC networks, such as ITU-T G.9903, IEEE > >> 1901.1 and IEEE 1901.2. > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> This document describes how IPv6 packets are > >> transported over constrained PLC networks, such as those > >> described in ITU-T G.9903, IEEE 1901.1, and IEEE 1901.2. > >> > >> ///Derek: I am OK with this change. Thanks > >> > >> Or: > >> This document describes how IPv6 packets are > >> transported over constrained PLC networks, which are > >> described in ITU-T G.9903, IEEE 1901.1, and IEEE 1901.2. > >> --> > >> ///Derek: "such as those" is preferred (I'm referring to the sentence > >> below "Perhaps:") > >> > >> 5) <!-- [rfced] Will it be clear to readers what "large quantity" is > >> referring to here? Should this read "large capacity", "large quantity > >> of nodes", or something else? > >> > >> Original: > >> The data acquisition devices in these scenarios share > >> common features such as fixed position, large quantity, low data rate > >> and low power consumption. > >> --> > >> ///Derek: I am OK with this change. "large quantity of nodes" is > >> preferred > >> > >> 6) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that "electric plugged devices" is > correct here. > >> > >> Original: > >> PLC technology enables convenient two-way communications for home > >> users and utility companies to monitor and control electric plugged > >> devices such as electricity meters and street lights. > >> --> > >> ///Derek: I suggest to use "electrically connected devices" instead of > "electric plugged devices ". > >> > >> 7) <!-- [rfced] We have several questions about the sentence below. > >> > >> - Should "have been addressed on the MAC and PHY layers for this > >> communication technology" be revised as shown below? > >> > >> - Would updating the text starting with "e.g." as follows to improve > readability? > >> > >> Original: > >> Various standards have been addressed on the MAC and PHY layers for > >> this communication technology, e.g., BBPLC (1.8-250 MHz) including > >> IEEE 1901 and ITU-T G.hn, and NBPLC (3-500 kHz) including ITU-T > >> G.9902 (G.hnem), ITU-T G.9903 (G3-PLC) [ITU-T_G.9903], ITU-T G.9904 > >> (PRIME), IEEE 1901.2 [IEEE_1901.2] (a combination of G3-PLC and PRIME > >> PLC) and IEEE 1901.2a [IEEE_1901.2a] (an amendment to IEEE 1901.2). > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> Various standards address this communication technology on the MAC and > Physical (PHY) > >> layers. For example, standards for BBPLC (1.8-250 MHz) > >> include IEEE 1901 and ITU-T G.hn, and standards for NBPLC (3-500 kHz) > include > >> ITU-T G.9902 (G.hnem), ITU-T G.9903 (G3-PLC) [ITU-T_G.9903], ITU-T > >> G.9904 (PRIME), IEEE 1901.2 (a combination of G3-PLC > >> and PRIME PLC) [IEEE_1901.2], and IEEE 1901.2a (an amendment to IEEE > >> 1901.2) [IEEE_1901.2a]. > >> --> > >> Derek: I am OK with this change. Thanks > >> > >> 8) <!-- [rfced] Since the "PLC MAC Layer" and "PLC PHY Layer" are two > >> different layers in Figure 1, we updated "PLC MAC/PHY layer" to read > >> "PLC MAC and PLC PHY > >> layers") in this sentence. Also, please review "corresponds to IEEE > >> 1901.1, IEEE 1901.2, or ITU-T G.9903" and let us know if updates are > needed for clarity. > >> > >> Original: > >> The PLC MAC/PHY layer corresponds to IEEE 1901.1, IEEE 1901.2 or ITU-T > >> G.9903. > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> The PLC MAC and PLC PHY layers correspond to the layers described > >> in IEEE 1901.1, IEEE 1901.2, or ITU-T G.9903. > >> --> > >> ///Derek: I am OK with this change. Thanks > >> > >> 9) <!-- [rfced] We see that "mesh-under" is mentioned in Section 3.4, > >> but "route-over" is not. We see "route-over" in Section 4.4. Are any > >> updates needed? > >> > >> Original: > >> The routes can be built in mesh-under > >> mode at layer 2 or in route-over mode at layer-3, as explained in > >> Section 3.4. > >> --> > >> ///Derek: Thanks for your comments. I suggest changing the above > sentence to "... as explained in Section 3.4 and Section 4.4." > >> > >> 10) <!-- [rfced] In Figure 1, should "IPv6" be "IPv6 Layer"? The other > >> fields include "Layer". > >> --> > >> ///Derek: I am fine with "IPv6 Layer". > >> > >> 11) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence, > >> specifically "besides [RFC4291]". Also, will it be clear to readers > >> what "reliable indicators for their original meanings" means? Please > >> let us know how we may update for clarity. > >> > >> Original: > >> As investigated in [RFC7136], besides [RFC4291], some other IID > >> generation methods defined in IETF do not imply any semantics for the > >> "Universal/Local" (U/L) bit (bit 6) and the Individual/Group bit (bit > >> 7), so that these two bits are not reliable indicators for their > >> original meanings. > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> As investigated in [RFC7136], aside from the method discussed in > [RFC4291], > >> other IID-generation methods defined by the IETF do not imply any > >> additional semantics for the Universal/Local (U/L) bit (bit 6) and the > >> Individual/Group bit (bit 7). Therefore, these two bits are not > reliable > >> indicators. > >> --> > >> ///Derek: I am OK with this change. Thanks > >> > >> 12) <!-- [rfced] Will readers understand "If so" (second sentence > >> below) and "If not" (third sentence below)? We included the first > sentence for context. > >> > >> Original: > >> Thus when using an IID derived by a short > >> address, the operators of the PLC network can choose to comply with > >> the original meaning of these two bits or not. If so, since the IID > >> derived from the short address is not global, these two bits MUST > >> both be set to zero. > >> ... > >> If not, the operator must be aware that these two bits are not > >> reliable indicators, and the IID cannot be transformed back into a > >> short link layer address via a reverse operation of the mechanism > >> presented above. > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> Thus, when using an IID derived by a short > >> address, the operators of the PLC network can choose whether or not > >> to comply with the original meaning of these two bits. If they choose > to > >> comply with the original meaning, these two bits > >> MUST both be set to zero, since > >> the IID derived from the short address is not global. > >> ... > >> If they choose not to comply with the original meaning, the operator > must > >> be aware that these two bits > >> are not reliable indicators, and the IID cannot be transformed back > >> into a short link-layer address via a reverse operation of the > >> mechanism presented above. > >> --> > >> ///Derek: I am OK with this change. Thanks > >> > >> 13) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify “by default of the implementations”. > >> > >> Original: > >> The hash algorithm by default > >> of the implementations SHOULD be SHA256, using the version number, > >> the PANID/NID and the short address as the input arguments, and the > >> 256-bits hash output is truncated into the IID by taking the high 64 > >> bits. > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> By default, the hash algorithm SHOULD be SHA256, using the version > number, > >> the PAN ID or NID, and the short address as the input arguments, and > >> the 256-bit hash output is truncated into the IID by taking > >> the high 64 bits. > >> --> > >> ///Derek: I am OK with this change. Thanks > >> > >> 14) <!-- [rfced] Please review "NCEs (neighbor cache entry)". Should > >> this be singular or plural? > >> > >> Original: > >> The resolution is realized by the > >> NCEs (neighbor cache entry) created during the address registration > >> at the routers. > >> > >> Perhaps (singular): > >> The resolution is realized by the > >> NCE (neighbor cache entry) created during the address registration > >> at the routers. > >> > >> Or (plural): > >> The resolution is realized by the > >> NCEs (neighbor cache entries) created during the address registration > >> at the routers. > >> --> > >> ///Derek: I suggest to use plural > >> > >> 15) <!-- [rfced] How may we recast this sentence to avoid hyphenation > >> of "RFC6775-only" and "RFC8505-updated"? See the "RFCs as Compounds" > >> section of the online style guide ( > https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/). > >> > >> Original: > >> The section 6 of [RFC8505] how > >> RFC6775-only devices work with RFC8505-updated devices. > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> Section 6 of [RFC8505] shows how > >> devices that only behave as specified in [RFC6775] can work with > devices > >> that have been updated per [RFC8505]. > >> --> > >> ///Derek: I am OK with this change. Thanks > >> > >> 16) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify "refers to" in the first sentence > >> below. Is this sentence saying the same thing as the sentence that > follows? > >> > >> Original: > >> The compression of IPv6 datagrams within PLC MAC frames refers to > >> [RFC6282], which updates [RFC4944]. Header compression as defined in > >> [RFC6282] which specifies the compression format for IPv6 datagrams > >> on top of IEEE 802.15.4, is the basis for IPv6 header compression in > >> PLC. > >> --> > >> ///Derek: Yes, this "refer to" sentence saying the same thing as the > sentence that follows. > >> > >> 17) <!-- [rfced] We believe that this sentence is correct, but please > >> confirm. We ask because we do not see "compression residu" in RFC 6282 > >> (though we think this refers to Figure 1 in Section 3 of RFC 6282). > >> > >> Original: > >> For situations when PLC MAC MTU cannot support the 1280-octet > >> IPv6 packet, headers MUST be compressed according to [RFC6282] > >> encoding formats, including the Dispatch Header, the LOWPAN_IPHC and > >> the compression residu carried in-line. > >> --> > >> ///Derek: Yes, this sentence is correct. > >> > >> 18) <!-- [rfced] Please review "in the 16-bit to IID mapping". Should > >> this read "in the 16-bit short address to the IDD mapping" or something > else? > >> > >> Original: > >> Any IID bits not covered by > >> context information are taken directly from their corresponding > >> bits in the 16-bit to IID mapping given by 0000:00ff:fe00:0XXX, > >> where 0XXX are the 16 bits carried in-line, in which the first > >> 4 bits are zero. > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> Any IID bits not covered by > >> context information are taken directly from their corresponding > >> bits in the 16-bit short address to the IID mapping given by > >> 0000:00ff:fe00:0XXX, where 0XXX are the 16 bits carried inline, > >> in which the first 4 bits are zero. > >> --> > >> ///Derek: I am OK with this change. Thanks > >> > >> 19) <!-- [rfced] Please review "of great potential applications". > >> Should this be updated to one of the following suggestions? > >> > >> Original: > >> Mesh networking in PLC is of great potential applications and has > >> been studied for several years. > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> a) > >> Mesh networking in PLC has many potential applications and has > >> been studied for several years. > >> > >> b) > >> Mesh networking in PLC has great potential for many applications > >> and has been studied for several years. > >> --> > >> ///Derek: option (a) is preferred, thanks > >> > >> 20) <!-- [rfced] Would it be helpful to include the names of the > >> protocols here rather than just the citations? > >> > >> Original: > >> Methods include protocols such as [RFC7925] (exchanging pre- > >> installed certificates over DTLS), [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security] > >> (which uses pre-shared keys), and > >> [I-D.ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-zerotouch-join] (a IoT version of BRSKI, > >> which uses IDevID and MASA service to facilitate authentication). > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> Methods include protocols such as the TLS/DTLS Profile [RFC7925] > >> (exchanging pre-installed certificates over DTLS), the Constrained > >> Join Protocol (CoJP) [RFC9031] (which > >> uses pre-shared keys), and Zero-Touch Secure Join [ZEROTOUCH] (an IoT > version of the > >> Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI), which uses an > >> Initial Device Identifier (IDevID) and a Manufacturer Authorized > >> Signing Authority (MASA) service to facilitate authentication). > >> --> > >> ///Derek: I am OK with this change. Thanks > >> > >> 21) <!-- [rfced] Should “interface identifiers (IID)” here read either > >> “IIDs” or > >> “IPv6 Interface Identifiers (IIDs)”? > >> > >> Original: > >> [RFC8065] discusses the privacy > >> threats when interface identifiers (IID) are generated without > >> sufficient entropy, including correlation of activities over time, > >> location tracking, device-specific vulnerability exploitation, and > >> address scanning. > >> --> > >> ///Derek: IID refers to interface identifier > >> > >> 22) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated the URLs for the two references > >> below because the original URLs returned 404 Errors (Page not found). > >> > >> Original: > >> [IEEE_1901.2] > >> IEEE-SA Standards Board, "IEEE Standard for Low-Frequency > >> (less than 500 kHz) Narrowband Power Line Communications > >> for Smart Grid Applications", IEEE 1901.2, October 2013, > >> <https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/ > >> standard/1901.2-2013.html>. > >> ... > >> [IEEE_1901.2a] > >> IEEE-SA Standards Board, "IEEE Standard for Low-Frequency > >> (less than 500 kHz) Narrowband Power Line Communications > >> for Smart Grid Applications - Amendment 1", IEEE 1901.2a, > >> September 2015, <https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/ > >> standard/1901.2a-2015.html>. > >> > >> Current: > >> [IEEE_1901.2] > >> IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Low-Frequency > >> (less than 500 kHz) Narrowband Power Line Communications > >> for Smart Grid Applications", > >> DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2013.6679210, > >> IEEE Std. 1901.2, December 2013, > >> <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6679210>. > >> ... > >> [IEEE_1901.2a] > >> IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Low-Frequency > >> (less than 500 kHz) Narrowband Power Line Communications > >> for Smart Grid Applications - Amendment 1", > >> DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2015.7286946, IEEE Std. 1901.2a, > >> October 2015, <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7286946>. > >> --> > >> ///Derek: I am OK with this change. Thanks > >> > >> 23) <!-- [rfced] The URL provided in this reference redirects to a > >> document titled "Guidelines for Use of Extended Unique Identifier > >> (EUI), Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI), and Company ID (CID)” > >> with a date of August 2017. > >> > >> May we update the title, date, and URL of this reference entry > accordingly? > >> > >> Original: > >> [EUI-64] IEEE-SA Standards Board, "Guidelines for 64-bit Global > >> Identifier (EUI-64) Registration Authority", IEEE EUI-64, > >> March 1997, <https://standards.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee- > >> standards/standards/web/documents/tutorials/eui.pdf>. > >> Suggested: > >> [EUI-64] IEEE, "Guidelines for Use of Extended > >> Unique Idenfier (EUI), Organizationally Unique Identifier > (OUI), > >> and Company ID (CID)", August 2017, > >> < > https://standards.ieee.org/wp-content/uploads/import/documents/ > >> tutorials/eui.pdf>. > >> --> > >> ///Derek: I am OK with this change. Thanks > >> > >> 24) <!-- [rfced] Terminology > >> > >> a) The following definitions in Section 2 include "IPv6". Is "IPv6" > >> needed here? We ask because it's not part of the expansion. > >> > >> IID: IPv6 Interface Identifier > >> RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks > >> > >> ///Derek: thanks for pointing out. "IPv6" is not needed here > >> > >> b) Please review instances of "Interface ID”. Should any of these read > “IID” > >> or “IPv6 Interface Identifier”? > >> ///Derek: The abbreviation of IID has been used in other 6lo RFCs (e.g. > RFC8065, RFC8015, RFC9159). I recommend keeping the abbreviation "IID". > >> > >> c) How should the acronym MAC be expanded in this document? We believe > >> that "Media Access Control" may be correct, but the possibilities > >> include the > >> following: > >> > >> Media Access Control (MAC) > >> Medium Access Control (MAC) > >> Message Authentication Code (MAC) > >> Mandatory Access Control (MAC) > >> > >> ///Derek: I agree acronym "Media Access Control (MAC)" should be > >> expanded. Thanks > >> > >> d) We see both "PLC Device" and "PLC device" used in the document. > >> Should these be uniform? If so, please let us know which form is > preferred. > >> > >> ///Derek: "PLC device" is preferred > >> > >> e) We note inconsistencies in the terms listed below. We chose the > >> form on the right. Please let us know any objections. > >> > >> PANID vs. PAN ID > >> EtherType vs. Ethertype > >> --> > >> ///Derek: "PAN ID" and "Ethertype" are preferred > >> > >> 25) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the > >> online Style Guide > >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> > >> and let us know if any changes are needed. > >> > >> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this > >> should still be reviewed as a best practice. > >> --> > >> > >> > >> Thank you. > >> > >> RFC Editor/st/rv > >> > >> > >> > >> *****IMPORTANT***** > >> > >> Updated 2022/12/23 > >> > >> RFC Author(s): > >> -------------- > >> > >> Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > >> > >> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and > >> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. > >> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies > >> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > >> > >> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > >> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > >> your approval. > >> > >> Planning your review > >> --------------------- > >> > >> Please review the following aspects of your document: > >> > >> * RFC Editor questions > >> > >> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > >> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > >> follows: > >> > >> <!-- [rfced] ... --> > >> > >> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > >> > >> * Changes submitted by coauthors > >> > >> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > >> coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you agree to > >> changes submitted by your coauthors. > >> > >> * Content > >> > >> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > >> change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > >> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > >> - contact information > >> - references > >> > >> * Copyright notices and legends > >> > >> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in RFC > >> 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP – > >> https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/). > >> > >> * Semantic markup > >> > >> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of > >> content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> > >> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > >> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. > >> > >> * Formatted output > >> > >> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > >> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > >> reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > >> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > >> > >> > >> Submitting changes > >> ------------------ > >> > >> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all > >> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties > >> include: > >> > >> * your coauthors > >> > >> * rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) > >> > >> * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., > >> IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the > >> responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). > >> > >> * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list > >> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion > >> list: > >> > >> * More info: > >> > >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxI > >> Ae6P8O4Zc > >> > >> * The archive itself: > >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > >> > >> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out > >> of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). > >> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you > >> have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, > >> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and > >> its addition will be noted at the top of the message. > >> > >> You may submit your changes in one of two ways: > >> > >> An update to the provided XML file > >> — OR — > >> An explicit list of changes in this format > >> > >> Section # (or indicate Global) > >> > >> OLD: > >> old text > >> > >> NEW: > >> new text > >> > >> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit > >> list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > >> > >> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that > >> seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion > >> of text, and technical changes. Information about stream managers can > >> be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a > stream manager. > >> > >> > >> Approving for publication > >> -------------------------- > >> > >> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email > >> stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY > >> ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. > >> > >> > >> Files > >> ----- > >> > >> The files are available here: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354.xml > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354.pdf > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354.txt > >> > >> Diff file of the text: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354-diff.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354-rfcdiff.html (side by > >> side) > >> > >> Diff of the XML: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354-xmldiff1.html > >> > >> Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes where > >> text has been deleted or moved): > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354-alt-diff.html > >> > >> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own > >> diff files of the XML. > >> > >> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354.original.v2v3.xml > >> > >> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates > >> only: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9354.form.xml > >> > >> > >> Tracking progress > >> ----------------- > >> > >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9354 > >> > >> Please let us know if you have any questions. > >> > >> Thank you for your cooperation, > >> > >> RFC Editor > >> > >> -------------------------------------- > >> RFC9354 (draft-ietf-6lo-plc-11) > >> > >> Title : Transmission of IPv6 Packets over PLC Networks > >> Author(s) : J. Hou, B. Liu, Y. Hong, X. Tang, C. Perkins > >> WG Chair(s) : Shwetha Bhandari, Carles Gomez > >> > >> Area Director(s) : Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke > >> > > > >
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9354 <draft-ietf-6lo-p… rfc-editor
- [auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9354 <draft-i… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9354 <dra… Erik Kline
- Re: [auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9354 <dra… Liubing (Remy)
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9354 <draft-i… Rebecca VanRheenen
- [auth48] 答复: [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9354 <dra… Houjianqiang (Derek)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9354 <draft-ietf-6… Lynne Bartholomew
- [auth48] 答复: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9354 <draft-ietf-6… Houjianqiang (Derek)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9354 <draft-ietf-6… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9354 <draft-ietf-6… Liubing (Remy)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9354 <draft-ietf-6… Charlie Perkins
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9354 <draft-ietf-6… Yong-Geun Hong
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9354 <draft-ietf-6… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9354 <draft-ietf-6… 汤效军
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9354 <draft-ietf-6… Rebecca VanRheenen
- [auth48] 答复: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9354 <draft-ietf-6… Houjianqiang (Derek)