Dear authors ; Thanks for incorporating a nonce in the computation of the privacy address. This addresses my concern. It would have been good to insist that you are doing it in the security section as well, but the text there confirms that the address is not repeated on the next connection so we should be all set. Also in the security section, I’m not sure what to do with this text:
“ However, malicious tries for one connection of a long-lived link with NFC technology are not secure, so the method of deriving interface identifiers from 6-bit NFC Link layer addresses is intended to preserve global uniqueness when it is possible. Therefore, it requires a way to protect from duplication through accident or forgery and to define a way to include sufficient bit of entropy in the IPv6 interface identifier, such as random EUI-64. “ I fail to understand the first sentence and the paragraph reads as a problem statement, but for what? Seems that section 4.3 does now provide the required entropy, correct? About section 4.5, I think some more text could be useful to assign the role of 6LBR. If 2 similar devices meet (say 2 handeheld), whether one is 6LR/LBR. How would that be decided? When they are different, if there is a fixed device (a payment terminal, say) or provides connectivity as a router, then it makes sense that it is 6LBR. This could be described so we would not end up with 2 devices that cannot talk because they only do 6LN. Cheers, Pascal From: Samita Chakrabarti [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: mardi 6 juin 2017 02:16 To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]>; Dave Thaler <[email protected]>; 최영환 <[email protected]>; [email protected]; lo <[email protected]> Cc: James Woodyatt <[email protected]> Subject: Review Request for ipv6-over-nfc-07 Hello Dave, Pascal, James and WG members: ipv6-over-nfc-07 has just been published and the author mentions that he had addressed the comments from Pascal and Dave. Pascal and Dave, would you please have sometime to review version 07 to check if your comments are addressed? I have appended the excerpt from IETF98 meeting minutes for your reference. This document is due for WG LC if it looks okay. James, you are shepherd for NFC draft -- please let us know if you are okay with the document's next step. Thanks, -Samita As per IETF98 meeting minutes: ================================================ 2 IPv6 over NFC Younghwan Choi https://tools.ietf.org/wg/6lo/draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-06 was presented by Younghawn Choi on updates and discussed comments from WG and NFC forum. The draft was reviewed by NFC forum, no more comments from NFC forum. The author likes to move to WGLC. Dave Thaler:IID generation changed as a result of previous meeting Pascal: Replacing 6 bit address with hashing function with fixed parameters. Scanning is still easy. How is it different? YC: offset. Dave: offset should be random to add entropy, not predictable. Gabriel: offset may not be a right name. Nonce would be better. Samita: need reviewers before WGLC. Pascal, Dave, would you volunteer? Pascal will do the review and Dave agreed to review the final update. ======================================================= ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: 최영환 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 5:02 PM Subject: RE: [6lo] Request for IETF99@Prague 6lo Agenda items To: Samita Chakrabarti <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Gabriel Montenegro <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Hello Samita, I’ve submitted the new version of ipv6-over-nfc (-07). The document is ready for review. Thanks. Best regards, Younghwan Choi
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
