Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9453 <draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-16> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) 
the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!-- [rfced] For readability, we would like to flip the order of the 
title.  In addition, to match the 6lo Working Group's wording (see 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/6lo/charter/), should the title be updated 
as follows?  Please review. 

Note that this update would also affect terminology in the abstract.

Original:
IPv6 over Constrained Node Networks (6lo) Applicability & Use cases

Perhaps: 
Applicability and Use Cases for IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo)
-->


2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search.
-->


3) <!-- [rfced] Should this list of design space dimensions be capitalized 
as they are in Appendix A, or may we lowecase the dimensions in Appendix A?  
In addition, we note that Security Level does not appear in the list in 
Appendix A; should it be added to match the list in section 1? 

Original:
   In addition, it considers various network design space
   dimensions such as deployment, network size, power source,
   connectivity, multi-hop communication, traffic pattern, security
   level, mobility, and QoS requirements (see Appendix A).

Original from Appendix A:
   In [RFC6568], the following design space dimensions are described:
   Deployment, Network size, Power source, Connectivity, Multi-hop 
   communication, Traffic pattern, Mobility, Quality of Service (QoS).
-->


4) <!-- [rfced] May we expand SIG as Special Interest Group?  

Original:
   The Bluetooth
   SIG has also published the Internet Protocol Support Profile (IPSP).

Perhaps (which matches what appears in RFC 9159):
   The Bluetooth Special Interest Group (Bluetooth SIG) has also published 
   the Internet Protocol Support Profile (IPSP).
-->


5) <!-- [rfced] Did you intend to include references for ISO/IEC 14443 A&B 
and JIS-X 6319-4?  If yes, please provide us with the reference information 
or pointers to the reference information. 

Original:
   NFC complements many popular consumer-level wireless
   technologies, by utilizing the key elements in existing standards for
   contactless card technology (ISO/IEC 14443 A&B and JIS-X 6319-4).
-->


6) <!-- [rfced] We have the following questions related to Table 2. 

a) Table 2 exceeds the 72-character line limit by 5 characters. We are reviewing possible ways to trim the length of the table.  Please let us know if you have any suggestions. 

b) Please confirm that the reference to RFC 7428 is correct. We ask because 
we do not see mention of Z-Wave, Home Automation, L2-mesh, or L3-mesh. 
-->


7) <!-- [rfced] "IPv6 address" is seemingly redundant.  May we update the 
text as follows? 

Original:
      For MAC-derived IPv6 addresses, please
      refer to [RFC8163] for IPv6 address mapping examples.

Perhaps:
      For MAC-derived IPv6 addresses, refer to [RFC8163] for mapping 
      examples.
-->


8) <!-- [rfced] For clarity and ease of the reader, may we update the text 
as follows? 

Original:
      The 6LoWPAN node should
      also support [RFC8505] and use it as the default Neighbor
      Discovery method.

Perhaps:
      The 6LoWPAN node should
      also support the registration extensions defined in [RFC8505] and 
      use the mechanism as the default Neighbor Discovery method.
-->


9) <!-- [rfced] May we update the expansion for AP-ND to match what appears 
in RFC 8929, which expands it as "Address-Protected Neighbor Discovery"? 

Original:
      Address Protection for 6LoWPAN
      Neighbor Discovery (AP-ND) [RFC8928] enables Source Address
      Validation [RFC6620] and protects the address ownership against
      impersonation attacks.
-->


10) <!-- [rfced] Is "objective function" needed here?  It seems redundant 
with the expansion of MRHOF.

Original:
   Note
   that the L3 routing in Netricity uses RPL in non-storing mode with
   the MRHOF (Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function) objective
   function based on their own defined Estimated Transmission Time (ETT)
   metric.
-->


11) <!-- [rfced] For readability, may we update "enjoys the advantage of" 
to "benefits from"? Or is there another way we may update?

Original:
   Although other wired and wireless technologies are also used in Smart
   Grid, PLC enjoys the advantage of reliable data communication over
   electrical power lines that are already present, and the deployment
   cost can be comparable to wireless technologies. 

Perhaps:
   Although other wired and wireless technologies are also used in a
   smart grid, PLC benefits from reliable data 
   communication over electrical power lines that are already present, 
   and the deployment cost can be comparable to wireless technologies. 
-->


12) <!-- [rfced] We have the following questions related to references. 

a) Would you like to update the reference [BACnet] reference to the most
recent version from 2020?

Current:
   [BACnet]   ASHRAE, "BACnet-A Data Communication Protocol for Building
              Automation and Control Networks (ANSI Approved)", ANSI/
              ASHRAE Standard 135-2016, January 2016,
              <https://www.techstreet.com/ashrae/standards/ashrae-
              135-2016?product_id=1918140#jumps>.


b) For the specification [BTCorev4.1], would you like to update to the most
recent version 5.4? Please review and let us know how/if we may update.

Current:
   [BTCorev4.1]
              Bluetooth, "Core Specification Version 4.1", December
              2013, <https://www.bluetooth.com/specifications/specs/
              core-specification-4-1/>.


c) The URL provided for [IPSP] directs to a page titled "Specifications and Documents", but there is no document named "Bluetooth Internet Protocol Support Profile Specification Version 1.0.0".  We are unable to locate a document with this title.  Please let us know how this entry should be updated. 


Original:
   [IPSP]     Bluetooth Special Interest Group, "Bluetooth Internet
              Protocol Support Profile Specification Version 1.0.0",
              December 2014, <https://www.bluetooth.org/en-
              us/specification/adopted-specifications>.>.

perhaps the URL should be to <https://www.bluetooth.com/specifications/specs/> or
<https://www.bluetooth.com/specifications/specs/internet-protocol-support-profile-1-0/>? 


d) Would you like to update the provided URL for [LLCP-1.4] to the 
following to lead directly to the document?

Original:
   [LLCP-1.4] NFC Forum, "NFC Logical Link Control Protocol, Version
              1.4", NFC Forum Technical Specification , January 2021,
              <https://nfc-forum.org/build/specifications>.

Perhaps:
   [LLCP-1.4] NFC Forum, "Logical Link Control Protocol Technical
              Specification", Version 1.4, December 2022,
	      <https://nfc-forum.org/build/specifications/logical-
	      link-control-protocol-technical-specification/>.
-->


13) <!-- [rfced] Please note that we have updated this sentence as follows.  
Please review and let us know if any corrections are needed.

Original:
   *  Buffering requirements: Some 6lo use case may require higher data
      rate than the link layer technology support.

Current: 
   Buffering Requirements:
      Some 6lo use cases may require a higher data rate than the link-
      layer technology supports.
-->


14) <!-- [rfced] We have the following terminology-related questions. 

a) We have updated the document to use "link-layer" (with a hyphen) where 
the terms are acting as an adjective appearing before the noun.  

Similarly, we have updated "constrained node" to "constrained-node" (with a 
hyphen). 

Please review and let us know if you have any concerns. 

b) Throughout the text, the following acronyms are missing expansions. 
Please review and let us know if/how we may update. We provided possible 
expansions the right.

GPRS - General Packet Radio Service or Ground Penetrating Radar Systems
ISM - Industrial, Scientific, and Medical
LV PLC networks - Low-Voltage PLC networks

Do instances of Low, Medium, and High Voltage need to be capitalized?  

c) FYI, for clarity, we added the following expansions to the provided
acronyms. Please let us know of any objections.

FDMA - Frequency-Division Multiplex
TDMA - Time-Division Multiple Access
TDD - Time-Division Duplex
-->


15) <!-- [rfced] Some author comments are present in the XML. Please 
confirm that no updates related to these comments are outstanding. Note 
that the comments will be deleted prior to publication.
-->


16) <!-- [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.

For example, please consider whether the following should be updated: 
   Master
   Slave

In addition, some guides suggest avoiding "senior citizen" and recommend 
replacements such as "older adults" or "persons 65 years and older" (see 
information about "Age" in  https://www.apa.org/about/apa/equity-diversity-inclusion/language-guidelines?_gl=1*w1b56*_ga*MTg0ODg5NzI0My4xNjkxNDc0OTI5*_ga_SZXLGDJGNB*MTY5MTQ3NDkyOS4xLjAuMTY5MTQ3NDkzNy4wLjAuMA..&_ga=2.202736337.1920239215.1691474929-1848897243.1691474929).
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor


On Aug 8, 2023, at 12:20 AM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2023/08/08

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
   
   *  [e-mail] (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).
     
   *  [e-mail], 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-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
     
     *  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, 
        [e-mail] 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/rfc9453.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-xmldiff1.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/rfc9453.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.form.xml


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9453

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9453 (draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-16)

Title            : IPv6 over Constrained Node Networks (6lo) Applicability & Use cases
Author(s)        : Y. Hong, C. Gomez, Y. Choi, A. Sangi, S. Chakrabarti
WG Chair(s)      : Shwetha Bhandari, Carles Gomez

Area Director(s) : Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke