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

[Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]>]

Greetings all,

We do not believe we have heard from you regarding this document’s readiness for publication.  Please review and respond to the questions below. 

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

Thank you,
RFC Editor/sg



> On Aug 8, 2023, at 12:31 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
>