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

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

Dear Sandy Ginoza.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Actually, I didn't receive your previous email that you sent on August 8.

Anyway, I checked the email and will handle it.

Best regards.

Yong-Geun.

2023년 8월 15일 (화) 오전 10:55, Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]>님이 작성:

> Greetings all,
>
> We do not believe we have heard from you regarding this document’s
> readiness for publication.  Please review and respond to the questions
> below.
>
> The files are available here:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.xml
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.pdf
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.txt
>
> Diff file of the text:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-diff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>
> Diff of the XML:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-xmldiff1.html
>
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/sg
>
>
>
> > On Aug 8, 2023, at 12:31 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > Authors,
> >
> > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as
> necessary)
> > the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
> >
> > 1) <!-- [rfced] For readability, we would like to flip the order of the
> > title.  In addition, to match the 6lo Working Group's wording (see
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/6lo/charter/), should the title be
> updated
> > as follows?  Please review.
> >
> > Note that this update would also affect terminology in the abstract.
> >
> > Original:
> > IPv6 over Constrained Node Networks (6lo) Applicability & Use cases
> >
> > Perhaps:
> > Applicability and Use Cases for IPv6 over Networks of
> Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo)
> > -->
> >
> >
> > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
> the
> > title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search.
> > -->
> >
> >
> > 3) <!-- [rfced] Should this list of design space dimensions be
> capitalized
> > as they are in Appendix A, or may we lowecase the dimensions in Appendix
> A?
> > In addition, we note that Security Level does not appear in the list in
> > Appendix A; should it be added to match the list in section 1?
> >
> > Original:
> >   In addition, it considers various network design space
> >   dimensions such as deployment, network size, power source,
> >   connectivity, multi-hop communication, traffic pattern, security
> >   level, mobility, and QoS requirements (see Appendix A).
> >
> > Original from Appendix A:
> >   In [RFC6568], the following design space dimensions are described:
> >   Deployment, Network size, Power source, Connectivity, Multi-hop
> >   communication, Traffic pattern, Mobility, Quality of Service (QoS).
> > -->
> >
> >
> > 4) <!-- [rfced] May we expand SIG as Special Interest Group?
> >
> > Original:
> >   The Bluetooth
> >   SIG has also published the Internet Protocol Support Profile (IPSP).
> >
> > Perhaps (which matches what appears in RFC 9159):
> >   The Bluetooth Special Interest Group (Bluetooth SIG) has also
> published
> >   the Internet Protocol Support Profile (IPSP).
> > -->
> >
> >
> > 5) <!-- [rfced] Did you intend to include references for ISO/IEC 14443
> A&B
> > and JIS-X 6319-4?  If yes, please provide us with the reference
> information
> > or pointers to the reference information.
> >
> > Original:
> >   NFC complements many popular consumer-level wireless
> >   technologies, by utilizing the key elements in existing standards for
> >   contactless card technology (ISO/IEC 14443 A&B and JIS-X 6319-4).
> > -->
> >
> >
> > 6) <!-- [rfced] We have the following questions related to Table 2.
> >
> > a) Table 2 exceeds the 72-character line limit by 5 characters. We are
> reviewing possible ways to trim the length of the table.  Please let us
> know if you have any suggestions.
> >
> > b) Please confirm that the reference to RFC 7428 is correct. We ask
> because
> > we do not see mention of Z-Wave, Home Automation, L2-mesh, or L3-mesh.
> > -->
> >
> >
> > 7) <!-- [rfced] "IPv6 address" is seemingly redundant.  May we update
> the
> > text as follows?
> >
> > Original:
> >      For MAC-derived IPv6 addresses, please
> >      refer to [RFC8163] for IPv6 address mapping examples.
> >
> > Perhaps:
> >      For MAC-derived IPv6 addresses, refer to [RFC8163] for mapping
> >      examples.
> > -->
> >
> >
> > 8) <!-- [rfced] For clarity and ease of the reader, may we update the
> text
> > as follows?
> >
> > Original:
> >      The 6LoWPAN node should
> >      also support [RFC8505] and use it as the default Neighbor
> >      Discovery method.
> >
> > Perhaps:
> >      The 6LoWPAN node should
> >      also support the registration extensions defined in [RFC8505] and
> >      use the mechanism as the default Neighbor Discovery method.
> > -->
> >
> >
> > 9) <!-- [rfced] May we update the expansion for AP-ND to match what
> appears
> > in RFC 8929, which expands it as "Address-Protected Neighbor Discovery"?
> >
> > Original:
> >      Address Protection for 6LoWPAN
> >      Neighbor Discovery (AP-ND) [RFC8928] enables Source Address
> >      Validation [RFC6620] and protects the address ownership against
> >      impersonation attacks.
> > -->
> >
> >
> > 10) <!-- [rfced] Is "objective function" needed here?  It seems
> redundant
> > with the expansion of MRHOF.
> >
> > Original:
> >   Note
> >   that the L3 routing in Netricity uses RPL in non-storing mode with
> >   the MRHOF (Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function) objective
> >   function based on their own defined Estimated Transmission Time (ETT)
> >   metric.
> > -->
> >
> >
> > 11) <!-- [rfced] For readability, may we update "enjoys the advantage
> of"
> > to "benefits from"? Or is there another way we may update?
> >
> > Original:
> >   Although other wired and wireless technologies are also used in Smart
> >   Grid, PLC enjoys the advantage of reliable data communication over
> >   electrical power lines that are already present, and the deployment
> >   cost can be comparable to wireless technologies.
> >
> > Perhaps:
> >   Although other wired and wireless technologies are also used in a
> >   smart grid, PLC benefits from reliable data
> >   communication over electrical power lines that are already present,
> >   and the deployment cost can be comparable to wireless technologies.
> > -->
> >
> >
> > 12) <!-- [rfced] We have the following questions related to references.
> >
> > a) Would you like to update the reference [BACnet] reference to the most
> > recent version from 2020?
> >
> > Current:
> >   [BACnet]   ASHRAE, "BACnet-A Data Communication Protocol for Building
> >              Automation and Control Networks (ANSI Approved)", ANSI/
> >              ASHRAE Standard 135-2016, January 2016,
> >              <https://www.techstreet.com/ashrae/standards/ashrae-
> >              135-2016?product_id=1918140#jumps>.
> >
> >
> > b) For the specification [BTCorev4.1], would you like to update to the
> most
> > recent version 5.4? Please review and let us know how/if we may update.
> >
> > Current:
> >   [BTCorev4.1]
> >              Bluetooth, "Core Specification Version 4.1", December
> >              2013, <https://www.bluetooth.com/specifications/specs/
> >              core-specification-4-1/>.
> >
> >
> > c) The URL provided for [IPSP] directs to a page titled "Specifications
> and Documents", but there is no document named "Bluetooth Internet Protocol
> Support Profile Specification Version 1.0.0".  We are unable to locate a
> document with this title.  Please let us know how this entry should be
> updated.
> >
> >
> > Original:
> >   [IPSP]     Bluetooth Special Interest Group, "Bluetooth Internet
> >              Protocol Support Profile Specification Version 1.0.0",
> >              December 2014, <https://www.bluetooth.org/en-
> >              us/specification/adopted-specifications>.>.
> >
> > perhaps the URL should be to <
> https://www.bluetooth.com/specifications/specs/> or
> > <
> https://www.bluetooth.com/specifications/specs/internet-protocol-support-profile-1-0/>?
>
> >
> >
> > d) Would you like to update the provided URL for [LLCP-1.4] to the
> > following to lead directly to the document?
> >
> > Original:
> >   [LLCP-1.4] NFC Forum, "NFC Logical Link Control Protocol, Version
> >              1.4", NFC Forum Technical Specification , January 2021,
> >              <https://nfc-forum.org/build/specifications>.
> >
> > Perhaps:
> >   [LLCP-1.4] NFC Forum, "Logical Link Control Protocol Technical
> >              Specification", Version 1.4, December 2022,
> >             <https://nfc-forum.org/build/specifications/logical-
> >             link-control-protocol-technical-specification/>.
> > -->
> >
> >
> > 13) <!-- [rfced] Please note that we have updated this sentence as
> follows.
> > Please review and let us know if any corrections are needed.
> >
> > Original:
> >   *  Buffering requirements: Some 6lo use case may require higher data
> >      rate than the link layer technology support.
> >
> > Current:
> >   Buffering Requirements:
> >      Some 6lo use cases may require a higher data rate than the link-
> >      layer technology supports.
> > -->
> >
> >
> > 14) <!-- [rfced] We have the following terminology-related questions.
> >
> > a) We have updated the document to use "link-layer" (with a hyphen)
> where
> > the terms are acting as an adjective appearing before the noun.
> >
> > Similarly, we have updated "constrained node" to "constrained-node"
> (with a
> > hyphen).
> >
> > Please review and let us know if you have any concerns.
> >
> > b) Throughout the text, the following acronyms are missing expansions.
> > Please review and let us know if/how we may update. We provided possible
> > expansions the right.
> >
> > GPRS - General Packet Radio Service or Ground Penetrating Radar Systems
> > ISM - Industrial, Scientific, and Medical
> > LV PLC networks - Low-Voltage PLC networks
> >
> > Do instances of Low, Medium, and High Voltage need to be capitalized?
> >
> > c) FYI, for clarity, we added the following expansions to the provided
> > acronyms. Please let us know of any objections.
> >
> > FDMA - Frequency-Division Multiplex
> > TDMA - Time-Division Multiple Access
> > TDD - Time-Division Duplex
> > -->
> >
> >
> > 15) <!-- [rfced] Some author comments are present in the XML. Please
> > confirm that no updates related to these comments are outstanding. Note
> > that the comments will be deleted prior to publication.
> > -->
> >
> >
> > 16) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
> > online Style Guide <
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
> > and let us know if any changes are needed.
> >
> > For example, please consider whether the following should be updated:
> >   Master
> >   Slave
> >
> > In addition, some guides suggest avoiding "senior citizen" and recommend
> > replacements such as "older adults" or "persons 65 years and older" (see
> > information about "Age" in
> https://www.apa.org/about/apa/equity-diversity-inclusion/language-guidelines?_gl=1*w1b56*_ga*MTg0ODg5NzI0My4xNjkxNDc0OTI5*_ga_SZXLGDJGNB*MTY5MTQ3NDkyOS4xLjAuMTY5MTQ3NDkzNy4wLjAuMA..&_ga=2.202736337.1920239215.1691474929-1848897243.1691474929
> ).
> > -->
> >
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > RFC Editor
> >
> >
> > On Aug 8, 2023, at 12:20 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > *****IMPORTANT*****
> >
> > Updated 2023/08/08
> >
> > RFC Author(s):
> > --------------
> >
> > Instructions for Completing AUTH48
> >
> > Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and
> > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
> > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
> > available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
> >
> > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
> > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
> > your approval.
> >
> > Planning your review
> > ---------------------
> >
> > Please review the following aspects of your document:
> >
> > *  RFC Editor questions
> >
> >   Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
> >   that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
> >   follows:
> >
> >   <!-- [rfced] ... -->
> >
> >   These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
> >
> > *  Changes submitted by coauthors
> >
> >   Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
> >   coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you
> >   agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
> >
> > *  Content
> >
> >   Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
> >   change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
> >   - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
> >   - contact information
> >   - references
> >
> > *  Copyright notices and legends
> >
> >   Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
> >   RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
> >   (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).
> >
> > *  Semantic markup
> >
> >   Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
> >   content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
> >   and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at
> >   <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
> >
> > *  Formatted output
> >
> >   Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
> >   formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
> >   reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting
> >   limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
> >
> >
> > Submitting changes
> > ------------------
> >
> > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
> > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
> > include:
> >
> >   *  your coauthors
> >
> >   *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)
> >
> >   *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
> >      IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
> >      responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
> >
> >   *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list
> >      to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
> >      list:
> >
> >     *  More info:
> >
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
> >
> >     *  The archive itself:
> >        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
> >
> >     *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
> >        of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive
> matter).
> >        If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
> >        have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
> >        [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and
> >        its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
> >
> > You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
> >
> > An update to the provided XML file
> > — OR —
> > An explicit list of changes in this format
> >
> > Section # (or indicate Global)
> >
> > OLD:
> > old text
> >
> > NEW:
> > new text
> >
> > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
> > list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
> >
> > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
> > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of
> text,
> > and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found
> in
> > the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream
> manager.
> >
> >
> > Approving for publication
> > --------------------------
> >
> > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
> > that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
> > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
> >
> >
> > Files
> > -----
> >
> > The files are available here:
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.xml
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.html
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.pdf
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.txt
> >
> > Diff file of the text:
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-diff.html
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> >
> > Diff of the XML:
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-xmldiff1.html
> >
> > The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own
> > diff files of the XML.
> >
> > Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.original.v2v3.xml
> >
> > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
> > only:
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.form.xml
> >
> >
> > Tracking progress
> > -----------------
> >
> > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9453
> >
> > Please let us know if you have any questions.
> >
> > Thank you for your cooperation,
> >
> > RFC Editor
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > RFC9453 (draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-16)
> >
> > Title            : IPv6 over Constrained Node Networks (6lo)
> Applicability & Use cases
> > Author(s)        : Y. Hong, C. Gomez, Y. Choi, A. Sangi, S. Chakrabarti
> > WG Chair(s)      : Shwetha Bhandari, Carles Gomez
> >
> > Area Director(s) : Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke
> >
> >
>
>