Hello Adam and all, Thanks for your valuable reviews. Please find my answers inline.
BRs, Younghwan Choi > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Roach via Datatracker <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 9:04 AM > To: The IESG <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Carles Gomez > <[email protected]>; Samita Chakrabarti <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13: (with DISCUSS > and > COMMENT) > > Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13: Discuss > > 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/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks to everyone who has worked on this document. > > I generally agree with Benjamin's discuss points, and in particular > agree with his comment that it's kind of hard to figure out how all > these pieces work together. I have an additional issue that is > somewhat related to some of the points he raised, but which is (I think) not > completely covered. > > I'm really confused about what the purported privacy properties of > this protocol are. In section 4.3 (which I *think* talks about > globally- routable IP addresses, although this is a bit unclear), the > document says: > > such an IID SHOULD guarantee a stable IPv6 address > because each data link connection is uniquely identified by the pair > of DSAP and SSAP included in the header of each LLC PDU in NFC > > (Aside: this "should" is a simple statement of fact, not a described > behavior of the protocol, and so the use of RFC-2119-style all-caps is > not > appropriate.) Agreed. I will fix it. > > The presence of "a stable IPv6 address" inherently implies the ability > to track devices. Agreed. I will change them with "a secured and stable IPv6 address". This is ok? > > Then, in section 7, I find the following text: > > > ...the short address of > NFC link layer (LLC) is not generated as a physically permanent value > but logically generated for each connection. Thus, every single > touch connection can use a different short address of NFC link with > an extremely short-lived link. > > This text seems to imply that addressing information is, in general, > not stable, which appears to flatly contradict the text in section 4.3. > > Please clarify, in section 4.3, what the duration of stability of > these identifiers is. This texts means "NFC applications use short-lived connections, and the every connection is made with different address." Just one permanent address is not used for a NFC device. If it looks like the texts appears to flatly contract the texts in section 4.3, I need to rephrase the texts for clarification. Thanks. It's good point, I think. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ID Nits reports: > > == Unused Reference: 'RFC4291' is defined on line 697, but no explicit > reference was found in the text Thanks. I will get rid of the reference. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > - > > §1: > > > IPv6 is an ideal internet > > protocols owing to its large address space > > Nit: "protocol" > Thanks. I will fix it. _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
