Hello Mirja and all, Thanks for your valuable reviews. Please find my answers inline.
BRs, Younghwan Choi > -----Original Message----- > From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 10:49 PM > To: The IESG <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Carles Gomez <[email protected]>; > Samita Chakrabarti <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13: (with > COMMENT) > > Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-nfc/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 1) I agree with Benjamin's discuss point on sec 3.4: there seems to be a > mismatch between the text and the figure that needs to be resolved or > clarified before publication. I agreed with Benjamin's point, so I will change the paragraph for clarification. Please refer to my answers for Benjamin's DISCUSS and COMMENTS. > > 2)Use of normative language doesn't always seem quite appropriate, > especially SHALL. Benjamin already identified some cases in section 3.3. > > Here is an additional one in sec 4.1: > "The adaptation layer for IPv6 over NFC SHALL support neighbor > discovery, stateless address auto-configuration, header compression, > and fragmentation & reassembly." I will get rid of the "SHALL". > > Also this MAY in sec 5.2: > "In an isolated NFC-enabled device network, > when two or more LRs MAY be connected with each other, and then they > are acting like routers, the 6LR MUST ensure address collisions do > not occur." > > Please also check other occurrences. I will change "MAY" with "are". And I will check the others as well. > > 3) I would have expected to see some discussion about the ability to > potentially connect devices over an IP-gateway device to the Internet that > were previously not designed to be connected to the Internet. However, > maybe that's asked too much as that is certainly something that needs to > be addressed by either a higher layer or the device system architecture as > a whole. > I don’t get your point about 3), but IPv6 over NFC is a just protocol and can be used for every NFC-enabled device (including IP-Gateway devices), which are connected to the Internet. _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
