[auth48] 答复: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9354 <draft-ietf-6lo-plc-11> for your review

["Houjianqiang (Derek)" <[e-mail]>]

Dear Editors and all, 

I noticed that our draft has been published (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9354/). Thank you all for your efforts and support! 😊

Cheers, 
Derek

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]> 
发送时间: 2023年1月12日 2:04
收件人: 汤效军 <[e-mail]>; Houjianqiang (Derek) <[e-mail]>; Liubing (Remy) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
抄送: RFC Editor <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
主题: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9354 <draft-ietf-6lo-plc-11> for your review

Hi Xiaojun and other authors,

Xiaojun - thank you for the reply! We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9354).

All authors - we now have all needed approvals. We will begin to prepare this document for publication at this time. 

Sincerely,
RFC Editor/rv



> On Jan 10, 2023, at 10:37 PM, 汤效军 <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> I agree with all the modification.
> Thanks for your efforts!
> Xiaojun
> 
> ----------------
>  
> 
> 
> ---------- Origin message ----------
> >From："Lynne Bartholomew" <[e-mail]>
> >To："Houjianqiang (Derek)" <[e-mail]>
> >Subject：Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9354 <draft-ietf-6lo-plc-11> for your 
> >review
> >Date：2023-01-07 02:07:16
> 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) <[e-mail]> 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:[e-mail]]
> > 发送时间: 2023年1月5日 7:13
> > 收件人: Houjianqiang (Derek) <[e-mail]>
> > 抄送: [e-mail]; Liubing (Remy) 
> > <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; 
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> > [e-mail]
> > 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=[e-mail]> 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> 发送时间: 2022年12月24日 4:23
> >> 收件人: Houjianqiang (Derek) <[e-mail]>; Liubing (Remy) 
> >> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; 
> >> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >> 抄送: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> >> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> >> [e-mail]
> >> 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
> >>
> >> * [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-4Q9l2U
> >> SxI
> >> 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, 
> >> [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/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
> >>
> >
> 
>