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

[Samita Chakrabarti <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sandy,

Sorry, I missed the messages earlier.  Now adding my work email to the
distribution list.

I am fine with the document.  A few changes regarding my information.

At the very end:

Samita Chakrabarti
Bedminster, NJ
USA
Email: [e-mail]


And my affiliation is Verizon.

Thanks,
-Samita

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023, 12:54 PM Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Samita,
>
> We do not believe we have heard from you regarding this document’s
> readiness for publication.  Please review the files at the URLs below and
> let us know if any updates are needed or if you approve the RFC for
> publication.  Please let us know if you would like to update your
> affiliation and contact information.
>
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/sg
>
>
>
> > On Sep 1, 2023, at 8:26 AM, Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Carles, Rashid,
> >
> > Thank you for your reviews.  We have updated the document as described
> by Carles and posted the revised files here:
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.xml
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.txt
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.pdf
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.html
> >
> > Diffs highlighting the updates described below only:
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-lastdiff.html
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-lastrfcdiff.html
> >
> > AUTH48 diff:
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-auth48diff.html
> >
> > Comprehensive diffs:
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-diff.html
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-rfcdiff.html
> >
> >
> > We have marked both of your approvals on the AUTH48 page <
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9453>.  We will wait to hear from
> Samita Chakrabarti before continuing with the process.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > RFC Editor/sg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Aug 31, 2023, at 10:53 PM, Carles Gomez Montenegro <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Sandy, all,
> >>
> >> Many thanks for the editorial work done.
> >>
> >> I have two update requests, as shown below.
> >>
> >>
> >> 1. In the Acknowledgments section, first paragraph:
> >>
> >> OLD:
> >>     2017 through grant SGR 376.
> >>
> >> NEW:
> >>     through grants 2017 SGR 376 and 2021 SGR 00330.
> >>
> >>
> >> 2. In the Authors' Addresses section:
> >>
> >> OLD:
> >>       Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya/Fundacio i2cat
> >>
> >> NEW:
> >>       Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya
> >>
> >> Other than the above, I approve the RFC for publication.
> >>
> >> Once again, many thanks.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Carles Gomez
> >>
> >> On Fri, 1 Sept 2023 at 07:00, Rashid Sangi <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear all,
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for your efforts.
> >>>
> >>> There is no update request from my side.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Rashid Sangi
> >>>
> >>> On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:42:59 PM GMT+8, Sandy Ginoza <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Greetings Younghwan Choi and Yong-Geun,
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for your review.  We have noted your approvals on the AUTH48
> page <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9453>.
> >>>
> >>> We will wait to hear from each of your coauthors before continuing
> with the publication process.  In particular, we will confirm Samita's
> affiliation prior to publication.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you,
> >>> RFC Editor/sg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Aug 31, 2023, at 9:17 PM, 최영환 <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear Sandy Ginoza and Yong-Geun,
> >>>>
> >>>> I am Younghwan Choi, who is one of the authors.
> >>>> I have no comments on the updates.
> >>>>
> >>>> Many thanks.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best Regards,
> >>>> Younghwan Choi
> >>>>
> >>>> -----------------------------------
> >>>> YOUNGHWAN CHOI, Ph.D.
> >>>> Principal Researcher, PEC, ETRI
> >>>> Tel [phone]  Fax [phone]
> >>>> Email  [e-mail]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: "Yong-Geun Hong" <[e-mail]>
> >>>> To: "Sandy Ginoza" <[e-mail]>;
> >>>> Cc: "RFC Editor" <[e-mail]>; "Carles Gomez
> Montenegro" <[e-mail]>; "최영환" <[e-mail]>; "Rashid
> Sangi" <[e-mail]>; "samita Chakrabarti" <
> [e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>;
> "Shwetha" <[e-mail]>; "Erik Kline" <[e-mail]>;
> <[e-mail]>;
> >>>> Sent: 2023-09-01 (금) 10:02:17 (UTC+09:00)
> >>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9453 <draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-16> for
> your review
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear Sandy Ginoza.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks again for your efforts.
> >>>>
> >>>> From my side, there is no request to update. Everything is O.K.
> >>>>
> >>>> I want to check one thing for Samita's affiliation.
> >>>> Samita, if you want to reflect your new affiliation, let us know.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best regards.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yong-Geun.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2023년 9월 1일 (금) 오전 8:40, Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]>님이 작성:
> >>>> Hi Yong-Geun, Authors,
> >>>>
> >>>> We have updated the document as described below.  Please review and
> let us know if any additional updates are needed or if you approve the RFC
> for publication.
> >>>>
> >>>> Note that we require an approval from each individual listed in the
> document header.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The files are available here:
> >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.xml
> >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.txt
> >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.pdf
> >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.html
> >>>>
> >>>> Diffs highlighting the most recent updates only:
> >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-lastdiff.html
> >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-lastrfcdiff.html
> >>>>
> >>>> AUTH48 diff (highlighting changes since the document entered AUTH48):
> >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-auth48diff.html
> >>>>
> >>>> Comprehensive diffs:
> >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-diff.html
> >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-rfcdiff.html
> >>>>
> >>>> An alternative comprehensive diff - this version will allow you to
> view changes in the Acknowledgements more easily:
> >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-alt-diff.html
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you,
> >>>> RFC Editor/sg
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Aug 23, 2023, at 5:52 PM, Yong-Geun Hong <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dear Sandy Ginoza.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks again for your efforts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I added my response in lines.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best regards.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yong-Geun.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2023년 8월 24일 (목) 오전 1:25, Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]>님이 작성:
> >>>>> Greetings Yong-Geun,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you for your review and detailed reply.  We have updated the
> document and have a few remaining questions below.  The current files are
> available here:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.xml
> >>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.txt
> >>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.pdf
> >>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> AUTH48 diff (highlighting changes since the document entered AUTH48):
> >>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-auth48diff.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Comprehensive diffs:
> >>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-diff.html
> >>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-rfcdiff.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> An alternative comprehensive diff - this version will allow you to
> view changes in the Acknowledgements more easily:
> >>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-alt-diff.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Open items:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1) We mistakenly did not include this in our original set of
> questions.  For readability, may we update the following?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Original:
> >>>>>  A user may turn on/off or may control home
> >>>>>  appliances by pressing a wall switch or by pressing a button in a
> >>>>>  remote control.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Perhaps:
> >>>>>  A user may turn home appliances on and off, or the user may control
> them
> >>>>>  by pressing a wall switch or a button on a
> >>>>>  remote control.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [Yong-Geun]  Thanks for the update. Agreed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2) Regarding table 2, thank you for your suggested updates.
> Unfortunately, some of the hyphenation did not display as desired in all of
> the outputs (i.e., the hyphenation breaks in the text were different from
> those in the html).  Please review our updates to Table 2 and let us know
> if you have concerns with the current format and use of abbreviations
> (e.g., Tx is used for transmission; we removed the brackets from RFCs
> (seems reasonable because they are all referenced elsewhere in the
> document).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [Yong-Geun]  Thanks for the update. It looks better and simpler.
> >>>>>                    One question.  As it changed from 'Automation' to
> 'Autom.', how about changing from "Requirement" to "Req." ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>> RFC Editor/sg
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Aug 18, 2023, at 11:04 PM, Yong-Geun Hong <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Dear RFC Editor.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks for your efforts to publish RFC 9453.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I add my response in lines.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best regards.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yong-Geun.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 보낸 사람: [e-mail]
> >>>>>>> 날짜: 2023년 8월 8일 오후 4시 31분 32초 GMT+9
> >>>>>>> 받는 사람: [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
> >>>>>>> 참조: [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail]
> >>>>>>> 제목: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9453 <draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-16> for
> your review
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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)
> >>>>>>> -->
> >>>>>> [Yong-Geun] Agreed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that
> appear in the
> >>>>>>> title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search.
> >>>>>>> -->
> >>>>>> [Yong-Geun]  It seems that the updated title is enough.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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).
> >>>>>>> -->
> >>>>>> [Yong-Geun]  Agree to modify the list of design space dimensions to
> be capitalized in Appendix A.
> >>>>>>                    I propose to delete “Security Level”.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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).
> >>>>>>> -->
> >>>>>> [Yong-Geun] Agreed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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).
> >>>>>>> -->
> >>>>>> [Yong-Geun] The reference for ISO/IEC 14443 A&B and JIS-X 6319-4 is
> not necessary in this draft. So proposed the expression of ISO/IEC 14443
> A&B and JIS-X 6319-4
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --> Proposal:
> >>>>>> NFC complements many popular consumer-level wireless
> >>>>>> technologies, by utilizing the key elements in existing standards
> for
> >>>>>> contactless card technology.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>> -->
> >>>>>> [Yong-Geun] Make the table 2 shorter under 72-character. Please
> find the attached XML file
> >>>>>> [Yong-Geun] The reference to RFC 7428 is correct because RFC 7428
> (Transmission of IPv6 Packets over ITU-T G.9959 Networks) is related to
> ITU-T G.9959 Networks and the ITU-T G.9959 is one of protocol for Z-wave.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>> -->
> >>>>>> [Yong-Geun] Agreed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>> -->
> >>>>>> [Yong-Geun] Agreed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>> -->
> >>>>>> [Yong-Geun] Agreed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>> -->
> >>>>>> [Yong-Geun] Agreed and proposed to delete ‘objective function’.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>> -->
> >>>>>> [Yong-Geun] Agreed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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>.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> [Yong-Geun] Proposal :
> >>>>>>              [BACnet]  ASHRAE, "BACnet-A Data Communication
> Protocol for Building
> >>>>>>                              Automation and Control Networks (ANSI
> Approved)", ANSI/
> >>>>>>                            ASHRAE Standard 135-2020, Ja20, October
> 2020.
> >>>>>>                            <
> https://www.techstreet.com/standards/ashrae-135-2020?product_id=2191852>.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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/>.
> >>>>>> [Yong-Geun] Proposal:
> >>>>>>              [BTCorev5.4]
> >>>>>>                        Bluetooth, "Core Specification Version 5.4",
> January
> >>>>>>                        2023, <
> https://www.bluetooth.com/specifications/specs/core-specification-5-4/>.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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/
> >?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> [Yong-Geun] Proposal:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>              [IPSP]    Bluetooth Special Interest Group, "Bluetooth
> Internet
> >>>>>>                          Protocol Support Profile Specification
> Version 1.0.0",
> >>>>>>                        December 2014, <
> 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/>.
> >>>>>>> -->
> >>>>>> [Yong-Geun] Agreed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>> -->
> >>>>>> [Yong-Geun] Agreed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>> [Yong-Geun] Thanks for the update. Agreed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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?
> >>>>>> [Yong-Geun] Proposal:
> >>>>>>          GPRS - General Packet Radio Service
> >>>>>>          ISM - Industrial, Scientific, and Medical
> >>>>>>          LV PLC networks - Low-Voltage PLC networks
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>> -->
> >>>>>> [Yong-Geun] Thanks for the update. Agreed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>> -->
> >>>>>> [Yong-Geun] There are no updates related to these comments. It is
> appreciated to delete the comments.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>> [Yong-Geun] The expression of ‘Master’ and ‘Slave’ is not inclusive
> language but is a technical word. I think it is O.K.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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
> ).
> >>>>>>> -->
> >>>>>> [Yong-Geun]  I prefer the expression of ‘older adults” rather than
> ‘senior citizen’
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> <draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-16_Table2.xml>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>