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

[Yong-Geun Hong <[e-mail]>]

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
>
>
>
>