Hi Mirja, Thanks a lot for your comment. Please see below.
BRs, Younghwan > -----Original Message----- > From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 4:42 PM > To: 최영환 <[email protected]> > Cc: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[email protected]>; The IESG > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Samita Chakrabarti <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13: > (with COMMENT) > > Hi Younghwan, > > Thanks! Please see below for point 3. > > > On 7. Jun 2019, at 03:35, 최영환 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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. > > If the assumption is that any IPv6 over NFC is only send in secured > networks, maybe the higher layers are not further protected, and therefore > a gateway should probably not just take the IPv6 packet and send it out in > the Internet as is. I wonder if that is something that should be further > discussed or at least mentioned in the security consideration section. > > Mirja > > Now I got your point. I agree with your comment. I will mention your point in section 7 of the next draft (-14). Thanks so much. _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
