Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9428 <draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-22> for your review

[Madison Church <[e-mail]>]

Hi Erik and authors,

Erik, thank you for your feedback on our question about inclusive language, specifically “man-in-the-middle”. 

All, would it be appropriate to add "man-in-the-middle (MITM)” to the "Conventions and Terminology” section with a pointer to [LLCP-1.4]?

Perhaps:
  This document uses the phrase "man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks” per [LLCP-1.4].

Alternately, we can update the text in which in the term appears in one of the following ways based on Erik’s suggestions:

Current:
  Ad hoc secure data transfer can be vulnerable to man-in-the-middle 
  (MITM) attacks. Authenticated secure data transfer provides protection
  against MITM attacks.  

Option 1 (indicate parity with the LLCP document):
  Ad hoc secure data transfer can be vulnerable to man-in-the-middle 
  (MITM) attacks (this term is used per [LLCP-1.4]). Authenticated 
  secure data transfer provides protection
  against MITM attacks.  

Option 2 (use "malefactor-in-the-middle"):
  Ad hoc secure data transfer can be vulnerable to malefactor-in-the-middle 
  (MITM) attacks. Authenticated secure data transfer provides protection
  against MITM attacks.  

Option 3 (use "on-path attacker”):
  Ad hoc secure data transfer can be vulnerable to on-path attacks. Authenticated 
  secure data transfer provides protection against on-path attacks.

Thank you,
RFC Editor/mc

> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:29 PM, Erik Kline <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I'm fine with man-in-the-middle if there's a way to let it be known
> that it's for parity with the LLCP document.
> 
> Failing that, if it's in order to just keep the MitM initialism then I
> think malefactor-in-the-middle works.
> 
> Failing that, "on-path attacker" seems best.
> 
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 11:56 AM Madison Church <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Joo-Sang,
>> 
>> Thank you for your reply. We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9428).
>> 
>> We have now received all necessary approvals, so we will move this document forward in the publication process at this time. Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process!
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> RFC Editor/mc
>> 
>>> On Jul 3, 2023, at 8:08 PM, Joosang Youn <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dears.
>>> 
>>> I agree with all the modifications and approve this RFC.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Joo-Sang Youn
>>> 
>>>> 2023. 7. 1. 오전 3:17, Madison Church <[e-mail]> 작성:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Younghwan,
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for your reply. We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9428).
>>>> 
>>>> We will await approvals from each author listed at the AUTH48 status page prior to moving this document forward in the publication process.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you!
>>>> RFC Editor/mc
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jun 30, 2023, at 1:12 AM, 최영환 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear Madison,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've reviewed the final version of the draft.
>>>>> I've no more comment on that.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Many thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Younghwan Choi
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>>>> YOUNGHWAN CHOI, Ph.D.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Principal Researcher, PEC, ETRI
>>>>> Tel [phone]   Fax [phone]
>>>>> Email  [e-mail]
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From:  "Madison Church" <[e-mail]>
>>>>> To:     "최영환" <[e-mail]>;  "Yong-Geun Hong" <[e-mail]>;  "#윤주상 교수" <[e-mail]>;
>>>>> Cc:     "rfc-editor" <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;  "Erik Kline" <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;
>>>>> Sent:  2023-06-28 (수) 02:30:17 (UTC+09:00)
>>>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9428 <draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-22> for your review
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Younghwan,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly. All of our questions have now been addressed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form.  We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Updated XML file:
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9428.xml
>>>>> 
>>>>> Updated output files:
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9428.html
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9428.txt
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9428.pdf
>>>>> 
>>>>> Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9428-auth48diff.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> Diff files showing all changes:
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9428-diff.html
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9428-rfcdiff.html (side-by-side diff)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version.
>>>>> 
>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9428
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>> RFC Editor/mc
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2023, at 9:55 PM, 최영환 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear Madison Church,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Many thanks for your feedback and the updates.
>>>>>> Please find the answers the followup questions inline bellows:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> B.rgds,
>>>>>> Younghwan
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>>>>> YOUNGHWAN CHOI, Ph.D.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Principal Researcher, PEC, ETRI
>>>>>> Tel [phone]   Fax [phone]
>>>>>> Email  [e-mail]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2023. 6. 24. 오전 4:10, Madison Church <[e-mail]> 작성:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Younghwan and Yong-Geun,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you for your replies. We have updated the document accordingly (see list of updated files below). We also have a few followup questions:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1)
>>>>>>>> b) Please confirm that I PDU expands to Information Field in an LLCP
>>>>>>>> Protocol Data Unit.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Original (from Section 3.2):
>>>>>>>> In order to send an IPv6 packet over NFC, the packet MUST be passed
>>>>>>>> down to the LLCP layer of NFC and carried by an Information Field in
>>>>>>>> an LLCP Protocol Data Unit (I PDU).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If this is correct, should "information field" be removed from this
>>>>>>>> sentence in section 3.4 because it's redundant with "I"?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>> The information field of an I PDU contains a single service data
>>>>>>>> unit.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>>> The I PDU contains a single service data
>>>>>>>> unit.
>>>>>>>>> "I" means "information", but I prefer "Original" text to your suggestion in order to avoid a kinds of confusion.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Per your reply, we did not make any changes. However, we note that the following forms appear in the document:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Information Field
>>>>>>> information field
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> May we update all instances to “Information field” (with “Information” capped and “field” lowercase)? Or do you prefer a different form?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I prefer “Information field” (with “Information” capped and “field” lowercase) as your proposal.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2)
>>>>>>>> 11) <!-- [rfced] The IANA entry for LOWPAN_IPHC includes references to both
>>>>>>>> [RFC6282] and [RFC8025].  Should these both be listed in Table 1?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Yes, there two references should be listed in the Table 1.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We added [RFC8025] to the Reference column in Table 1. We also added a corresponding reference entry for RFC 8025 in the Informative References section. Please let us know if it should be placed in the Normative References instead.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think it should be placed in the Normative References rather than the Informative References.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 3)
>>>>>>>> 14) <!-- [rfced] We have a few questions regarding terminology in this
>>>>>>>> document.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> a) Throughout the text, the terms "IPv6 over NFC" and "IPv6-over-NFC"
>>>>>>>> appear to be used inconsistently. We have used the hyphenated form when the
>>>>>>>> "IPv6-over-NFC" modifies the noun that follows.  Please review and let us
>>>>>>>> know if any updates are needed.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Only the "IPv6-over-NFC" is OK throughout the text.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> For terms like this, we typically use the open form (no hyphens) for the noun and the hyphenated form when used in the attributive position (before a noun). We updated this document accordingly. Is "IPv6-over-NFC” (with hyphens) considered a term of art that should always appear with hyphens? If so, we will update the noun form to also use hyphenation.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am sorry to make you confused because of the previous answer.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As you mentioned, I agree with the use of the open form (no hyphens) is typically right for nouns, and I agree with use of the hyphenated form when used in the attributive position (before a noun). There are 26 nouns of “IPv6 over NFC” and 7 uses in the attributive position (like “IPv6-over-NFC ~~”). All of your updates are OK currently for me.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 4)
>>>>>>>> c) We note that "NFC Physical Layer" and "NFC Logical Link Layer" are
>>>>>>>> capitalized consistently throughout the document.  Should "adaptation
>>>>>>>> layer" also be capitalized, for example, IPv6-over-NFC adaptation layer and
>>>>>>>> NFC adaptation layer?  Is "adaptation layer" lowercased when it's part a
>>>>>>>> nickname for "Adaptation Layer for IPv6 over NFC"?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The "adaptation layer" should be capitalized as well.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We capitalized “adaptation layer” in the context of "IPv6-over-NFC Adaptation Layer” and "Adaptation Layer for IPv6 over NFC”, but we used lowercase for the term otherwise. Please review and let us know if any further updates are needed.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Your proposal and updates are OK for me, and I don’t think I need any more further updates.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _____________
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Updated XML file:
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9428.xml
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Updated output files:
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9428.txt
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9428.pdf
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9428.html
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9428-auth48diff.html
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Diff files showing all changes:
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9428-diff.html
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9428-rfcdiff.html(side-by-side diff)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form.  We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9428
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>> RFC Editor/mc
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Jun 20, 2023, at 7:00 PM, Yong-Geun Hong <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Dears.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I agreed with the proposal of RFC Editor and Younghwan's modification.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best regards.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yong-Geun
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2023년 6월 20일 (화) 오전 10:15, 최영환 <[e-mail]>님이 작성:
>>>>>>>> Dear RFC Editor,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Many thanks for your review.
>>>>>>>> Your review is perfect to me, and every changes you recommend is OK.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Please find my answer inline bellows:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>> Younghwan
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From:  "" <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>> To:      <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;
>>>>>>>> Cc:      <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;
>>>>>>>> Sent:  2023-06-13 (화) 12:27:49 (UTC+09:00)
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9428 <draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-22> 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] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
>>>>>>>> title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> There are 7 keywords such as
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>            "Near Field Communication",
>>>>>>>>            "NFC",
>>>>>>>>            "6LowPAN",
>>>>>>>>            "IPv6",
>>>>>>>>            "Adaptation Layer",
>>>>>>>>            "IoT", and
>>>>>>>>            "Internet of Things".
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence.  Please
>>>>>>>> consider whether the suggested update clarifies the text.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>> In order to benefit from Internet connectivity, it is desirable for
>>>>>>>> NFC-enabled devices to support IPv6, considering its large address
>>>>>>>> space, along with tools for unattended operation, among other
>>>>>>>> advantages.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>>> In order to benefit from Internet connectivity, it is desirable for
>>>>>>>> NFC-enabled devices to support IPv6 because of its large address space
>>>>>>>> and the availability of tools for unattended operation, along with other
>>>>>>>> advantages.
>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Your suggestion in "Perhaps" is OK.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] May we rephrase the following text to form a complete
>>>>>>>> sentence?  Please consider whether the suggested update conveys the
>>>>>>>> intended meaning.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>> An IPv6 datagram is transmitted by the Logical Link Control Protocol
>>>>>>>> (LLCP) with guaranteed delivery, two-way transmission of information
>>>>>>>> between the peer devices.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>>> An IPv6 datagram is transmitted by the LLCP with guaranteed delivery
>>>>>>>> and two-way transmission of information between the peer devices. -->
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Your suggestion in "Perhaps" is OK.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] We have a few questions regarding expansions.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> a) Is "RF" the expansion of "radio frequency" in this context?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> It is right.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>> The MAC Mapping integrates an existing RF protocol into the LLCP
>>>>>>>> architecture.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>>> The MAC Mapping integrates an existing radio frequency (RF) protocol
>>>>>>>> into the LLCP architecture.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Your suggestion in "Perhaps" is OK.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> b) Please confirm that I PDU expands to Information Field in an LLCP
>>>>>>>> Protocol Data Unit.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Original (from Section 3.2):
>>>>>>>> In order to send an IPv6 packet over NFC, the packet MUST be passed
>>>>>>>> down to the LLCP layer of NFC and carried by an Information Field in
>>>>>>>> an LLCP Protocol Data Unit (I PDU).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If this is correct, should "information field" be removed from this
>>>>>>>> sentence in section 3.4 because it's redundant with "I"?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>> The information field of an I PDU contains a single service data
>>>>>>>> unit.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>>> The I PDU contains a single service data
>>>>>>>> unit.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> "I" means "information", but I prefer "Original" text to your suggestion in order to avoid a kinds of confusion.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> c) FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations upon first use
>>>>>>>> per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
>>>>>>>> expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. -->
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> It looks prefect to me.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Should "value" be plural?  Is there a value for the Source
>>>>>>>> Service Access Point (SSAP) and another for the Destination Service Access
>>>>>>>> Point (DSAP)?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>> The LLCP to IPv6 protocol
>>>>>>>> binding MUST transfer the Source Service Access Point (SSAP) and
>>>>>>>> Destination Service Access Point (DSAP) value to the IPv6 over NFC
>>>>>>>> adaptation layer.
>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> The "value" should be plural, so revised texts should be like following (NEW).
>>>>>>>>>> NEW:
>>>>>>>> The LLCP to IPv6 protocol
>>>>>>>> binding MUST transfer the Source Service Access Point (SSAP) and
>>>>>>>> Destination Service Access Point (DSAP) values to the IPv6 over NFC
>>>>>>>> adaptation layer.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] May we rephrase the following sentence to limit the use of
>>>>>>>> "over"?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>> The latter can still be supported over IPv6 over NFC, albeit without
>>>>>>>> the performance optimization of header compression.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>>> The latter can still be supported by IPv6 over NFC, albeit without
>>>>>>>> the performance optimization of header compression. -->
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Your suggestion in "Perhaps" is OK.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] We have rephrased the following text to make the
>>>>>>>> introduction of the abbreviation "RID" more uniform. Please let us know any objections.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>> Following the guidance of [RFC7136], interface identifiers of all
>>>>>>>> unicast addresses for NFC-enabled devices are 64 bits long and
>>>>>>>> constructed by using the generation algorithm of random (but stable)
>>>>>>>> identifier (RID) [RFC7217].
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Current:
>>>>>>>> Following the guidance of [RFC7136], IIDs of all
>>>>>>>> unicast addresses for NFC-enabled devices are 64 bits long and
>>>>>>>> constructed by using the generation algorithm of random
>>>>>>>> identifiers (RIDs) that are stable [RFC7217]. -->
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Your suggestion in "Current" is OK.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Please consider whether the following suggested update is
>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>> NFC supports mesh topologies, but most of all
>>>>>>>> applications would use a simple multi-hop network topology or
>>>>>>>> directly connected peer-to-peer network because NFC RF range is very
>>>>>>>> short.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Suggested:
>>>>>>>> NFC supports mesh topologies, but most
>>>>>>>> applications would use a simple multi-hop network topology or
>>>>>>>> be directly connected a peer-to-peer network because the NFC RF
>>>>>>>> range is very short.
>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Your suggestion in "Suggested" is OK.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.4: Is this a sequence of events (that is, they
>>>>>>>> happen in order) or do both occur when an NFC 6LN is directly connected to
>>>>>>>> a 6LBR?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>> *  When an NFC 6LoWPAN Node (6LN) is directly connected to an 6LBR,
>>>>>>>>  the 6LN MUST register its address with the 6LBR by sending
>>>>>>>>  Neighbor Solicitation (NS) with the Extended Address Registration
>>>>>>>>  Option (EARO) [RFC8505], and Neighbor Advertisement (NA) is
>>>>>>>>  started.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Current:
>>>>>>>>  When an NFC 6LN is directly connected to a 6LBR,
>>>>>>>>  the 6LN MUST register its address with the 6LBR by sending
>>>>>>>>  Neighbor Solicitation (NS) with the Extended Address Registration
>>>>>>>>  Option (EARO) [RFC8505]; then Neighbor Advertisement (NA) is
>>>>>>>>  started. -->
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Your suggestion in "Current" is OK.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] Should "LN" read as "6LN"? There is no usage of "LN" on
>>>>>>>> its own throughout the document.  Or does this refer to LoWPAN?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>> When two or more NFC LNs are connected to the 6LBR, two cases of
>>>>>>>> topologies can be formed...In the multi-hop topology, LNs which have two or
>>>>>>>> more links with neighbor nodes may act as routers. In star topology, any of
>>>>>>>> LNs can be a router.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>>> When two or more NFC 6LNs are connected to the 6LBR, two cases of
>>>>>>>> topologies can be formed... In the multi-hop topology, 6LNs which have two or
>>>>>>>> more links with neighbor nodes may act as routers. In star topology, any of
>>>>>>>> 6LNs can be a router. -->
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Your suggestion in "Perhaps" is OK.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 11) <!-- [rfced] The IANA entry for LOWPAN_IPHC includes references to both
>>>>>>>> [RFC6282] and [RFC8025].  Should these both be listed in Table 1?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, there two references should be listed in the Table 1.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> See https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Original (Figure 6) - note that lines have been removed so the text could
>>>>>>>> be included in the XML as comments::
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>          |  Pattern   | Header Type        | Reference |
>>>>>>>>          | 01  1xxxxx | LOWPAN_IPHC        | [RFC6282] |
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 12) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the text in section 7.  However, it is
>>>>>>>> unclear to us whether the bulleted text is quoted from [LLCP-1.4] because
>>>>>>>> we do not have access to the document.  Please review and let us know if
>>>>>>>> reversions are needed to match what appears in the referenced
>>>>>>>> specification.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>> Per the NFC Logical Link Control Protocol [LLCP-1.4]:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> *  LLCP of NFC provides protection of user data to ensure
>>>>>>>>  confidentiality of communications.  The confidentiality mechanism
>>>>>>>>  involves the encryption of user service data with a secret key
>>>>>>>>  that has been established during link activation.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> *  LLCP of NFC has two modes (i.e., ad-hoc mode and authenticated
>>>>>>>>  mode) for secure data transfer.  Ad-hoc secure data transfer can
>>>>>>>>  be established between two communication parties without any prior
>>>>>>>>  knowledge of the communication partner.  Ad-hoc secure data
>>>>>>>>  transfer can be vulnerable to Man-In-The-Middle (MITM) attacks.
>>>>>>>>  Authenticated secure data transfer provides protection against
>>>>>>>>  Man-In-The-Middle (MITM) attacks.  In the initial bonding step,
>>>>>>>>  the two communicating parties store a shared secret along with a
>>>>>>>>  Bonding Identifier.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> *  For all subsequent interactions, the communicating parties re-use
>>>>>>>>  the shared secret and compute only the unique encryption key for
>>>>>>>>  that session.  Secure data transfer is based on the cryptographic
>>>>>>>>  algorithms defined in the NFC Authentication Protocol [NAP-1.0].
>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I have checked your updated texts in "Diff file of the text". Your updated texts are OK.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 13) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the following references to more closely
>>>>>>>> align with the information provided at the URL.  In particular, the dates
>>>>>>>> were updated to reflect the noted adoption dates.  Please let us know if
>>>>>>>> any corrections are needed.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 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>.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Current:
>>>>>>>> [LLCP-1.4] NFC Forum, "Logical Link Control Protocol Technical
>>>>>>>>          Specification", Version 1.4, December 2022,
>>>>>>>>          <https://nfc-forum.org/build/specifications>.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Your suggestion in "Current" is OK.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>> [NAP-1.0]  NFC Forum, "NFC Authentication Protocol Candidate
>>>>>>>>       Technical Specification, Version 1.0", NFC Forum Technical
>>>>>>>>       Specification , December 2020,
>>>>>>>>       <https://nfc-forum.org/build/specifications>.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Current:
>>>>>>>> [NAP-1.0]  NFC Forum, "NFC Authentication Protocol Technical
>>>>>>>>          Specification", Verison 1.0, December 2022,
>>>>>>>>          <https://nfc-forum.org/build/specifications>.
>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Your suggestion in "Current" is OK.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 14) <!-- [rfced] We have a few questions regarding terminology in this
>>>>>>>> document.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> a) Throughout the text, the terms "IPv6 over NFC" and "IPv6-over-NFC"
>>>>>>>> appear to be used inconsistently. We have used the hyphenated form when the
>>>>>>>> "IPv6-over-NFC" modifies the noun that follows.  Please review and let us
>>>>>>>> know if any updates are needed.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Only the "IPv6-over-NFC" is OK throughout the text.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> b) We note that "IPv6-LLCP Binding" is used throughout the document. May we
>>>>>>>> replace "LLCP to IPv6 protocol binding" with "IPv6-LLCP Binding" for
>>>>>>>> consistency?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>> The LLCP to IPv6 protocol
>>>>>>>> binding MUST transfer the Source Service Access Point (SSAP) and
>>>>>>>> Destination Service Access Point (DSAP) value to the IPv6 over NFC
>>>>>>>> adaptation layer.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>>> IPv6-LLCP Binding MUST transfer the Source Service Access Point (SSAP)
>>>>>>>> and Destination Service Access Point (DSAP) value to the IPv6-over-NFC
>>>>>>>> adaptation layer.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Your suggestion in "Perhaps" is OK, and the "value" should be plural in the sentence.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> c) We note that "NFC Physical Layer" and "NFC Logical Link Layer" are
>>>>>>>> capitalized consistently throughout the document.  Should "adaptation
>>>>>>>> layer" also be capitalized, for example, IPv6-over-NFC adaptation layer and
>>>>>>>> NFC adaptation layer?  Is "adaptation layer" lowercased when it's part a
>>>>>>>> nickname for "Adaptation Layer for IPv6 over NFC"?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> The "adaptation layer" should be capitalized as well.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 15) <!-- [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
>>>>>>>> "man-in-the-middle" should be updated. -->
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I prefer using "man-in-the-middle" in the text because this document refer to the terms used in [LLCP-1.4] specification.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> RFC Editor
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2023, at 8:23 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Updated 2023/06/12
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 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/rfc9428.xml
>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9428.html
>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9428.pdf
>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9428.txt
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9428-diff.html
>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9428-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Diff of the XML:
>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9428-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/rfc9428.original.v2v3.xml
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
>>>>>>>> only:
>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9428.form.xml
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Tracking progress
>>>>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9428
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> RFC Editor
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> RFC9428 (draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-22)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Title            : Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Near Field Communication
>>>>>>>> Author(s)        : Y. Choi, Ed., Y. Hong, J. Youn
>>>>>>>> WG Chair(s)      : Shwetha Bhandari, Carles Gomez
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Area Director(s) : Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>