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

[[e-mail]]

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. -->


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.
-->


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. -->


4) <!-- [rfced] We have a few questions regarding expansions.

a) Is "RF" the expansion of "radio frequency" in this context?

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. 

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.

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. -->


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.
-->


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. -->


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]. -->


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. 
-->


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. -->


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. -->


11) <!-- [rfced] The IANA entry for LOWPAN_IPHC includes references to both 
[RFC6282] and [RFC8025].  Should these both be listed in 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].               
-->


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>.


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>.
-->


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.  

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. 

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"?

-->


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. -->


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