Dear Adam Roach, Thanks for your feedback. Please find the answer inline bellows.
BRs, Younghwan > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Roach <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 2:06 AM > To: 최영환 <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Carles Gomez <[email protected]>; > Samita Chakrabarti <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13: (with DISCUSS > and COMMENT) > > Sorry for the relatively slow response. Comments inline. > > On 6/7/19 3:01 AM, 최영환 wrote: > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> - > >> 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? > > > I don't think this changes the issue. Your response below implies that the > address is stable only over very short periods of time, and that would > address my concern. If that's true, then the solution would be to add text > here that qualifies how long the address is stable (e.g.: > "...such an IID should guarantee a stable IPv6 address during the course > of a single connection, because...") > I got it. I will put the text. Thanks for your comment again. > > > > >> 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. _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
