Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Near Field Communication
draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-17
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2022-03-22
|
17 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot discuss] I attempted to review the changes from -13 to -17, as well as look at the -17 in isolation, though I do not … [Ballot discuss] I attempted to review the changes from -13 to -17, as well as look at the -17 in isolation, though I do not really have enough time available to do a proper review before my term as AD expires. I'm still worried that in general this document doesn't give a clear picture of how all the pieces fit together, and which pieces are new as opposed to reused from other specifications. I do appreciate many of the updates made to streamline the introductory text and keep it focused on what is relevant for this document. I am also happy to see that use of MIUX has been made mandatory so that the L2CAP FAR is not needed. However, I do not see much justification for the MUST-level requirement that the MIUX value be exactly 0x480. Is there some reason to forbid the negotiation of larger link MTU, if both parties are capable? I would have expected only a requirement that the MIUX value be at least 0x480. Section 4.3 should probably provide some guidance on choosing the PRF F(). We are implicitly relying on RFC 7217 for a lot of things, some of which 7127 doesn't even cover, and the suggested construction in RFC 7127 may not still be best practice. I think the figure in Section 3.4 that lays out the encoding of the MIUX TLV is incomplete or inaccurate -- e.g., the third field shows only four bits but the labels indicate it should occupy six bits, and the range of values for the fourth field indicates it should occupy eleven bits but the column labels give it only ten. A section-by-section point as well: Section 4.5 o When an NFC-enabled 6LN is directly connected to a an NFC-enabled 6LBR, the NFC 6LN MUST register its address with the 6LBR by How does the device know that it's talking NFC to a 6LBR as opposed to some non-border-router peer? |
|
2022-03-22
|
17 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Section 4.1 It's unclear to me what information I'm supposed to get from Figure 3 that differs from what was in Figure 1. … [Ballot comment] Section 4.1 It's unclear to me what information I'm supposed to get from Figure 3 that differs from what was in Figure 1. Section 4.2 The writing here is hard to follow -- I'm supposed to utilize the 6-bit NFC LLCP address to form an IID (with nothing about how), but then we see that IIDs for unicast are randomly generated (without using the LLCP address), and only finally at the end do we mention the RFC 7217 PRF (and not even by name!) Section 4.4 o When two or more NFC devices are connected, there are two cases. One is that three or more NFC devices are linked with multi-hop connections, and the other is that they meet within a single hop range. [...] I thought we said that NFC was a two-party thing only. How are we getting multi-hop connections? If I assume that this is talking about the IPv6 layer, how do we guarantee that only NFC-capable devices are participating in the IPv6 network? Section 4.8 A note that the field descriptions are largely copied from Section 4.6.1 of RFC 4861 would still be helpful. Section 7 I think it would be good to retain the paragraph about mitigating the threat of correlation of activities over time that was removed between -13 and -17; it would just be better for it to appear later in the section. |
|
2022-03-22
|
17 | Benjamin Kaduk | Ballot comment and discuss text updated for Benjamin Kaduk |
|
2020-11-25
|
17 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS points. Original COMMENT below: = General = I agree with Benjamin that the marketing-type language in the document … [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS points. Original COMMENT below: = General = I agree with Benjamin that the marketing-type language in the document should be removed. I wonder about the claims of security based on proximity in this document. Presumably attacks in which users are induced to tap their device against another node or terminal which has been compromised by an attacker are becoming more common as NFC becomes more common; adding IPV6 connectivity to the terminal stack surely broadens the potential damage done in such a case. This seems worth noting. = Section 1 = OLD It has been used in devices such as mobile phones, running Android operating system, named with a feature called "Android Beam". In addition, it is expected for the other mobile phones, running the other operating systems (e.g., iOS, etc.) to be equipped with NFC technology in the near future. NEW At the time of this writing, it had been used in devices such as mobile phones, running Android operating system, named with a feature called "Android Beam". It was expected for the other mobile phones, running the other operating systems (e.g., iOS, etc.) to be equipped with NFC technology in the near future. = Section 4.5 = Per the Gen-ART review, the use of the term "meet" is confusing in this section. Please re-phrase. |
|
2020-11-25
|
17 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alissa Cooper has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2020-08-23
|
17 | Younghwan Choi | New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-17.txt |
|
2020-08-23
|
17 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-08-23
|
17 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Younghwan Choi <yhc@etri.re.kr>, 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, Joo-Sang Youn <joosang.youn@gmail.com>, JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Younghwan Choi <yhc@etri.re.kr>, 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, Joo-Sang Youn <joosang.youn@gmail.com>, JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>, Dongkyun Kim <dongkyun@knu.ac.kr>, Yong-Geun Hong <YGHONG@ETRI.RE.KR> |
|
2020-08-23
|
17 | Younghwan Choi | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-07-09
|
16 | Younghwan Choi | New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-16.txt |
|
2020-07-09
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-07-09
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Joo-Sang Youn <joosang.youn@gmail.com>, 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, Yong-Geun Hong <YGHONG@ETRI.RE.KR>, Younghwan Choi <yhc@etri.re.kr>, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Joo-Sang Youn <joosang.youn@gmail.com>, 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, Yong-Geun Hong <YGHONG@ETRI.RE.KR>, Younghwan Choi <yhc@etri.re.kr>, JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>, Dongkyun Kim <dongkyun@knu.ac.kr> |
|
2020-07-09
|
16 | Younghwan Choi | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-03-25
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | Shepherding AD changed to Erik Kline |
|
2020-01-23
|
15 | Adam Roach | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS point. |
|
2020-01-23
|
15 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adam Roach has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2019-07-08
|
15 | Younghwan Choi | New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-15.txt |
|
2019-07-08
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-07-08
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, Dongkyun Kim <dongkyun@knu.ac.kr>, Younghwan Choi <yhc@etri.re.kr>, JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, Dongkyun Kim <dongkyun@knu.ac.kr>, Younghwan Choi <yhc@etri.re.kr>, JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>, Yong-Geun Hong <YGHONG@ETRI.RE.KR>, Joo-Sang Youn <joosang.youn@gmail.com> |
|
2019-07-08
|
15 | Younghwan Choi | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-07-08
|
14 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
|
2019-07-08
|
14 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
|
2019-07-08
|
14 | Younghwan Choi | New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-14.txt |
|
2019-07-08
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-07-08
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, Dongkyun Kim <dongkyun@knu.ac.kr>, Younghwan Choi <yhc@etri.re.kr>, JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, Dongkyun Kim <dongkyun@knu.ac.kr>, Younghwan Choi <yhc@etri.re.kr>, JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>, Yong-Geun Hong <YGHONG@ETRI.RE.KR>, Joo-Sang Youn <joosang.youn@gmail.com> |
|
2019-07-08
|
14 | Younghwan Choi | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-03-20
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Telechat review by GENART with state 'Team Will not Review Version' |
|
2019-03-14
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
|
2019-03-14
|
13 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] I apologize - I've read the document, but it doesn't seem like it contains enough information to allow a full implementation. The document … [Ballot comment] I apologize - I've read the document, but it doesn't seem like it contains enough information to allow a full implementation. The document keeps talking about the fact that the range is limited to 10cm, and makes some security assertions from this - from the little that I understand about this technology (and I wasn't able to follow all the references), ISO 15693 tags using NDEF are now part of the NFC specification - these work up to 1M. I have no idea if this protocol is supposed to work over that, but if so, 1M is greater than 10cm. Also, I see you did respond to the OpsDir review ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-6lo-nfc-12-opsdir-lc-wu-2018-12-19/ -- thank you very much, Qin) , but there are things in these which don't seem fully addressed. As an example, Qin asked: ---- Section 3.4 said ” the MTU size in NFC LLCP MUST be calculated from the MIU value as follows: MIU = 128 + MIUX.” Can you provide formula to calculate MTU from MIU? Not clear how MTU is related to MIU? --- You responded: "YH >> Actually, MIU is the same as MTU. Specifications in NFC forum use 'MIU', and we use 'MTU'. But these two has the same meaning." I read version 13 of this document and had the exact same question -- how do I calculate the MTU from the MIU? If they really are the same thing (which I'm not sure they are), the document should state that, so readers can more easily implement. |
|
2019-03-14
|
13 | Warren Kumari | Ballot comment text updated for Warren Kumari |
|
2019-03-14
|
13 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] I apologize - I've read the document, but it doesn't seem like it contains enough information to allow a full implementation. The document … [Ballot comment] I apologize - I've read the document, but it doesn't seem like it contains enough information to allow a full implementation. The document keeps talking about the fact that the range is limited to 10cm, and makes some security assertions from this - from the little that I understand about this technology (and I wasn't able to follow all the references), ISO 15693 tags using NDEF are now part of the NFC specification - these work up to 1M. I have no idea if this protocol is supposed to work over that, but if so, 1M is greater than 10cm. Also, I see you did respond to the OpsDir review ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-6lo-nfc-12-opsdir-lc-wu-2018-12-19/ ) , but there are things in these which don't seem fully addressed. As an example, Qin asked: ---- Section 3.4 said ” the MTU size in NFC LLCP MUST be calculated from the MIU value as follows: MIU = 128 + MIUX.” Can you provide formula to calculate MTU from MIU? Not clear how MTU is related to MIU? --- You responded: "YH >> Actually, MIU is the same as MTU. Specifications in NFC forum use 'MIU', and we use 'MTU'. But these two has the same meaning." I read version 13 of this document and had the exact same question -- how do I calculate the MTU from the MIU? If they really are the same thing (which I'm not sure they are), the document should state that, so readers can more easily implement. |
|
2019-03-14
|
13 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
|
2019-03-13
|
13 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot discuss] I am unable to adequately review this document because the first normative reference and hence this DISCUSS is incomplete (ordinarily this would conflict … [Ballot discuss] I am unable to adequately review this document because the first normative reference and hence this DISCUSS is incomplete (ordinarily this would conflict with the DISCUSS guidelines, but I believe it is necessary in this case). [LLCP-1.3] "NFC Logical Link Control Protocol version 1.3", NFC Forum Technical Specification , March 2016. Does not appear to be publicly available (the web site contains a single-page PDF which reads in part "To view the complete specification, go to http://nfc-forum.org/our- work/specifications-and-application-documents/specifications/nfc-forum- technical-specifications/. Complete the license agreement, and then download the specification."). Please supply an unencumbered specification and then I can rereview. I have read S 3.4 repeatedly, but am unable to work out the mapping of an IPv6 datagram to LLCP. Please provide a diagram that shows how this works and then perhaps I can assist you with the text. |
|
2019-03-13
|
13 | Eric Rescorla | Ballot discuss text updated for Eric Rescorla |
|
2019-03-13
|
13 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot discuss] I am unable to adequately review this document because the first normative reference and hence this DISCUSS is incomplete. [LLCP-1.3] … [Ballot discuss] I am unable to adequately review this document because the first normative reference and hence this DISCUSS is incomplete. [LLCP-1.3] "NFC Logical Link Control Protocol version 1.3", NFC Forum Technical Specification , March 2016. Does not appear to be publicly available (the web site contains a single-page PDF which reads in part "To view the complete specification, go to http://nfc-forum.org/our- work/specifications-and-application-documents/specifications/nfc-forum- technical-specifications/. Complete the license agreement, and then download the specification."). Please supply an unencumbered specification and then I can rereview. I have read S 3.4 repeatedly, but am unable to work out the mapping of an IPv6 datagram to LLCP. Please provide a diagram that shows how this works and then perhaps I can assist you with the text. |
|
2019-03-13
|
13 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla |
|
2019-03-13
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
|
2019-03-13
|
13 | Adam Roach | [Ballot 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 … [Ballot 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.) The presence of "a stable IPv6 address" inherently implies the ability to track devices. 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. |
|
2019-03-13
|
13 | Adam Roach | [Ballot comment] ID Nits reports: == Unused Reference: 'RFC4291' is defined on line 697, but no explicit reference was found … [Ballot comment] ID Nits reports: == Unused Reference: 'RFC4291' is defined on line 697, but no explicit reference was found in the text --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §1: > IPv6 is an ideal internet > protocols owing to its large address space Nit: "protocol" |
|
2019-03-13
|
13 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
|
2019-03-13
|
13 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] I agree with Benjamin about antenna size. Despite that I have enjoyed reading this document. I have some questions/comments that I would like … [Ballot comment] I agree with Benjamin about antenna size. Despite that I have enjoyed reading this document. I have some questions/comments that I would like to discuss before recommending publication of this document as an RFC: In 3.2: The LLCP consists of Logical Link Control (LLC) and MAC Mapping. The MAC Mapping integrates an existing RF protocol into the LLCP architecture. The LLC contains three components, such as Link Management, Connection-oriented Transmission, and Connection-less Transmission. The Link Management component is responsible for serializing all connection-oriented and connection-less LLC PDU (Protocol Data Unit) exchanges and for aggregation and disaggregation of small PDUs. This component also guarantees asynchronous balanced mode communication and provides link status supervision by performing the symmetry procedure. Can you translate the last sentence for somebody who is not an expert in this? In 4.4: The tool for a 6LBR to obtain an IPv6 prefix for numbering the NFC network is can be accomplished via DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation I think "is" before "can be" should be deleted above. ([RFC3633]). In 4.5: o When two or more NFC 6LNs(or 6LRs) meet, there are two cases. One is that three or more NFC devices are linked with multi-hop connections, and the other is that they meet within a single hop range (e.g., isolated network). In a case of multi-hops, all of 6LNs, which have two or more connections with different neighbors, MAY be a router for 6LR/6LBR. In a case that they meet within a single hop and they have the same properties, any of them can be a router. When the NFC nodes are not of uniform category (e.g., different MTU, level of remaining energy, connectivity, etc.), a performance-outstanding device can become a router. The last sentence: how can 2 NFC nodes figure out which one has higher level or remaining energy, etc? In 4.7: Therefore, IPv6 header compression in [RFC6282] MUST be implemented. Further, implementations MAY also support Generic Header Compression (GHC) of [RFC7400]. Will 2 NFC implementations interoperate if one of them supports GHC and the other one doesn't? If they can't, then "MAY" seems to be too weak here. In 4.8: IPv6-over-NFC fragmentation and reassembly (FAR) for the payloads is NOT RECOMMENDED in this document as discussed in Section 3.4. You are using "NOT RECOMMENDED", which is "SHOULD NOT". Why is this not a "MUST NOT" and why implementation of FAR would be Ok if one node supports it and another one doesn't? |
|
2019-03-13
|
13 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
|
2019-03-13
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] I support Alissa's second Discuss point about the plan for fragmentation interoperation, and her third Discuss point about connecting unsuspecting devices to the … [Ballot comment] I support Alissa's second Discuss point about the plan for fragmentation interoperation, and her third Discuss point about connecting unsuspecting devices to the Internet :-) Other people have said this, but requiring MIUX would be awesome. |
|
2019-03-13
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
|
2019-03-13
|
13 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot discuss] I support Benjamin's DISCUSS point about large antennas. RFC 2119 specifies the keywords "RECOMMENDED" and "NOT RECOMMENDED." This document uses these in verb … [Ballot discuss] I support Benjamin's DISCUSS point about large antennas. RFC 2119 specifies the keywords "RECOMMENDED" and "NOT RECOMMENDED." This document uses these in verb form ("RECOMMEND" and "NOT RECOMMEND"). Please change these instances so that the actual 2119 keywords are used. = Section 4.8 = I think the Gen-ART reviewer's question about fragmentation is unresolved. How is interoperability achieved if some nodes implement MIUX and not FAR, and some nodes implement FAR and not MIUX? It seems as though IPv6-over-NFC needs to be restricted to nodes that support one or the other (presumably MIUX). = Section 5.1 and 7 = Per the Gen-ART review, one of these sections needs to say something about how connecting to the Internet potentially changes the threat model for devices that were perhaps not originally envisioned to connect to the Internet. |
|
2019-03-13
|
13 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] = General = I agree with Benjamin that the marketing-type language in the document should be removed. I wonder about the claims of … [Ballot comment] = General = I agree with Benjamin that the marketing-type language in the document should be removed. I wonder about the claims of security based on proximity in this document. Presumably attacks in which users are induced to tap their device against another node or terminal which has been compromised by an attacker are becoming more common as NFC becomes more common; adding IPV6 connectivity to the terminal stack surely broadens the potential damage done in such a case. This seems worth noting. = Section 1 = OLD It has been used in devices such as mobile phones, running Android operating system, named with a feature called "Android Beam". In addition, it is expected for the other mobile phones, running the other operating systems (e.g., iOS, etc.) to be equipped with NFC technology in the near future. NEW At the time of this writing, it had been used in devices such as mobile phones, running Android operating system, named with a feature called "Android Beam". It was expected for the other mobile phones, running the other operating systems (e.g., iOS, etc.) to be equipped with NFC technology in the near future. = Section 4.5 = Per the Gen-ART review, the use of the term "meet" is confusing in this section. Please re-phrase. |
|
2019-03-13
|
13 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
|
2019-03-13
|
13 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot 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 … [Ballot 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. 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." 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. 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. |
|
2019-03-13
|
13 | Mirja Kühlewind | Ballot comment text updated for Mirja Kühlewind |
|
2019-03-13
|
13 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot 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 … [Ballot 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. 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." 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. 3) I would have accepted 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. |
|
2019-03-13
|
13 | Mirja Kühlewind | Ballot comment text updated for Mirja Kühlewind |
|
2019-03-13
|
13 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot 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 … [Ballot 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. 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." 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. 3) I would have accepted 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. |
|
2019-03-13
|
13 | Mirja Kühlewind | Ballot comment text updated for Mirja Kühlewind |
|
2019-03-13
|
13 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] 1) I agree with Benjamins discuss point on sec 3.4. There seems to be a mismatch between the text and the figure that … [Ballot comment] 1) I agree with Benjamins 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. 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." 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. 3) I would have accepted 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. |
|
2019-03-13
|
13 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
|
2019-03-11
|
13 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
|
2019-03-11
|
13 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot discuss] In general, I'm worried that this document is so unreadable that I can't give it a proper review. I just don't have a … [Ballot discuss] In general, I'm worried that this document is so unreadable that I can't give it a proper review. I just don't have a clear picture of how all the pieces fit together, and which pieces are new as opposed to reused from other specifications. That said, here are my notes as they stand at present. If I understand correctly, the statements about "distance of 10 cm or less" and "safe" or "secure communications" apply only for usage compliant with the relevant legal regulations. We cannot expect attackers to abide by such regulations, and large (directional) antennas and/or high-power transmitters should be presumed to expand that distance by some factor, in adversarial environments. Section 4.3 should probably provide some guidance on choosing the PRF F(). We are implicitly relying on RFC 7217 for a lot of things, some of which 7127 doesn't even cover, and the suggested construction in RFC 7127 may not still be best practice. I don't understand why MIUX is not mandatory (and thus we could get rid of all the "FAR is NOT RECOMMENDED" stuff). Is there known demand for IPv6 over NFC on devices that cannot do MIUX? Some section-by-section points as well: Section 3.1 peer mode is used for ipv6-over-nfc. In addition, NFC-enabled devices can securely send IPv6 packets to any corresponding node on the Internet when an NFC-enabled gateway is linked to the Internet. I don't see anything in the document that justifies the usage of "securely". Section 3.4 When the MIUX parameter is encoded as a TLV option, the TLV Type field MUST be 0x02 and the TLV Length field MUST be 0x02. The MIUX parameter MUST be encoded into the least significant 11 bits of the TLV Value field. The unused bits in the TLV Value field MUST be set to zero by the sender and ignored by the receiver. A maximum value Either the MIUX occupies 11 bits and there are five unused bits to be set to zero, or the four bits marked in the figure are 1011 and there is only one unused bit (singular) to be marked as zero. This needs to be more clear, as right now I can't tell what's intended. Section 4.4 How does a device know that the link-local address is a public address? Section 4.5 o When an NFC-enabled device (6LN) is directly connected to a 6LBR, an NFC 6LN MUST register its address with the 6LBR by sending a How does the device know that it's talking NFC to a 6LBR as opposed to some non-border-router peer? |
|
2019-03-11
|
13 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] A lot of this document reads like marketing material for NFC, which is a bit off-putting in a technical specification. (Some examples: "outstanding … [Ballot comment] A lot of this document reads like marketing material for NFC, which is a bit off-putting in a technical specification. (Some examples: "outstanding performance", "NFC builds upon RFID systems by allowing two-way communication between endpoints, where earlier systems such as contactless smart cards were one-way only", "NFC also has the strongest ability (e.g., secure communication distance of 10 cm) to prevent a third party from attacking privacy", "NFC technology enables simple and safe two-way interactions between electronic devices", "NFC's bidirectional communication ability is ideal for establishing connections with other technologies by the simplicity of touch", etc.) Section 1 Considering the potential for exponential growth in the number of heterogeneous air interface technologies, NFC would be widely used as one of the other air interface technologies, such as Bluetooth Low Energy (BT-LE), Wi-Fi, and so on. nit: I think there's a word missing here or something, maybe "as widely used". Section 3 NFC's bidirectional communication ability is ideal for establishing connections with other technologies by the simplicity of touch. In nit: other technologies, or other devices? Section 3.2 There's no "IPv6 layer" in Figure 1. Section 3.3 Address values between 10h and 1Fh SHALL be assigned by the local LLC to services registered by local service environment. [...] Is this duplicating a requirement from LLCP-1.3 or new to this spec? Section 3.4 MIUX extension parameter within the information field. If no MIUX parameter is transmitted, the default MIU value is 128 bytes. nit: I think this reads better (in context) without "default" here. When the MIUX parameter is encoded as a TLV option, the TLV Type field MUST be 0x02 and the TLV Length field MUST be 0x02. The MIUX parameter MUST be encoded into the least significant 11 bits of the TLV Value field. The unused bits in the TLV Value field MUST be set to zero by the sender and ignored by the receiver. A maximum value (Figure 2 is a little confusing because the '|' separator inside the value field occupies a bit position; this type of diagram is frequently laid out "double width", to allow a '| separator between each bit, with '+' characters in the horizontal delimiting lines to mark off bit boundaries.) Also, you say "least significant bits" without specifying network byte order. nit: isn't this "The" maximum value? of the TLV Value field can be 0x7FF, and a maximum size of the MTU in NFC LLCP is 2176 bytes including the 128 byte default of MIU. How can we use all 128 bytes of MIU when we need to spend four bytes on the MIUX TLV? Section 4.1 It's unclear to me what information I'm supposed to get from Figure 3 that differs from what was in Figure 1. Section 4.2 This document does NOT RECOMMEND using FAR over NFC link due to simplicity of the protocol and implementation. [...] nit: this isn't clear about what is simple. ("If FAR is simple, wouldn't that make it easy to implement and use?") Section 4.3 An NFC-enabled device (i.e., 6LN) performs stateless address autoconfiguration as per [RFC4862]. A 64-bit Interface identifier (IID) for an NFC interface is formed by utilizing the 6-bit NFC LLCP address (see Section 3.3). In the viewpoint of address configuration, 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. (Just to check: these DSAP and SSAP are only unique within the context of the current NFC pairing between two devices?) The writing here is hard to follow -- I'm supposed to utilize the 6-bit NFC LLCP address to form an IID (with nothing about how), but then we see that IIDs for unicast are randomly generated (without using the LLCP address), and only finally at the end do we mention the RFC 7217 PRF (and not even by name!) Section 4.4 Show me where the "Universal/Local" bit is, in the figure. Expand 6LBR (and 6LR) on first use, and/or have a terminology section that mentions that familiarity with the 6LoWPAN RFCs is assumed. Section 4.5 accordingly. In addition, if DHCPv6 is used to assign an address, Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) is not necessary. Not necessary in the DHCPv6 server or some other element? o When two or more NFC 6LNs(or 6LRs) meet, there are two cases. One is that three or more NFC devices are linked with multi-hop connections, and the other is that they meet within a single hop I thought we said that NFC was a two-party thing only. How are we getting multi-hop connections? If I assume that this is talking about the IPv6 layer, how do we guarantee that only NFC-capable devices are participating in the IPv6 network? router. When the NFC nodes are not of uniform category (e.g., different MTU, level of remaining energy, connectivity, etc.), a performance-outstanding device can become a router. [...] This seems rather under-specified. Section 4.9 A link to Section 4.6.1 of RFC 4861 and a note that the field descriptions are largely copied therefrom would be helpful. Section 5.1 This section is laying out the physical mechanics of how a NFC node can be connected to the Internet, but does not say why this is "typical" or what the NFC node would be talking to on the Internet. One of the key applications of using IPv6 over NFC is securely transmitting IPv6 packets because the RF distance between 6LN and 6LBR is typically within 10 cm. If any third party wants to hack into the RF between them, it must come to nearly touch them. Or use a big and ungainly high-gain antenna/illegal transmit power, right? Section 5.2 This example does a little better than the previous one at conveying what might motivate such a topology, but it's still pretty vague. What is "outstanding performance"? This doesn't seem actionable. Section 7 IPv6-over-NFC is, in practice, not used for long-lived links for big size data transfer or multimedia streaming, but used for extremely short-lived links (i.e., single touch-based approaches) for ID verification and mobile payment. This will mitigate the threat of correlation of activities over time. This mitigation only occurs if the IID is freshly generated for each link, which isn't mentioned until the next paragraph, so it's an unsupported claim at this point in the text. IPv6-over-NFC uses an IPv6 interface identifier formed from a "Short Address" and a set of well-known constant bits (such as padding with '0's) for the modified EUI-64 format. However, the short address of nit: Is the zero-padding really a "such as" or just a fact, given the protocol specification? 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 nit: I don't think this is "can use"; I think this is "uses". an extremely short-lived link. This can mitigate address scanning as well as location tracking and device-specific vulnerability exploitation. These last two seem to have high overlap with the "correlation of activities over time" from the previous paragraph. Thus, this document does not RECOMMEND sending NFC packets over the Internet or any unsecured network. I don't see any preceding argument that leads into or supports this claim; why is the word "thus" present? Also, such a recommendation seems like it should be more prominently made near the start of the document and not relegated to the security considerations. This document also does not give any indication of what might be considered to be a "secure" network. Note that per the RFC 3552 threat model, we generally do not place any trust in the network. Section 9.2 Isn't the whole point of this work that you are doing IPv6 over NFC? How do you not need to implement NFC in order to implement this? |
|
2019-03-11
|
13 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
|
2019-03-11
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
|
2019-03-07
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Jari Arkko |
|
2019-03-07
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Jari Arkko |
|
2019-03-07
|
13 | Leif Johansson | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Leif Johansson. Sent review to list. |
|
2019-03-06
|
13 | Amy Vezza | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-03-14 |
|
2019-03-05
|
13 | Suresh Krishnan | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2019-03-05
|
13 | Suresh Krishnan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
|
2019-03-05
|
13 | Suresh Krishnan | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? A. draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-10 draft is a 'standards track' document. The intended status is indicated in the document header. Since it is defining ipv6-over NFC adaptation layer, it is standard track. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: Near field communication (NFC) is a set of standards for smartphones and portable devices to establish radio communication with each other by touching them together or bringing them into proximity, usually no more than 10 cm. The NFC technology has been widely implemented and available in mobile phones, laptop computers, and many other devices. This document describes how IPv6 is transmitted over NFC using 6LowPAN techniques. Considering the potential for exponential growth in the number of heterogeneous air interface technologies, NFC would be widely used as one of the other air interface technologies, such as Bluetooth Low Energy (BT-LE), Wi-Fi, and so on. Each of the heterogeneous air interface technologies has its own characteristics, which cannot be covered by the other technologies, so various kinds of air interface technologies would co-exist together. Therefore, it is required for them to communicate with each other. Running IPv6 over the various low power L2 technologies with the modified 6lowpan stack ensures interoperability among the devices with various heterogeneous air interfaces. Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? A. This document has been revised several times based on working group comments. It has been reviewed by several experienced 6lo working group members including Pascal Thubert and Dave Thaler who have been designated reviewers of this document. It has has also received shepherd's comments and went through two WGLC ( one short and one regular one). Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? A. The document has been reviewed and discussed by many 6lo experts in the WG including Pascal Thubert, Carsten Bormann, Dave Thaler, Samita Chakrabarti, Gabriel Montenegro, James Woodyatt, Alex Petrescue, Michael Richardson. An implementation of 6lo-NFC exists and they participated on a 6lo plugtests. The document effort is also socialized with NFC-Forum and they are well aware this document. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Document Shepherd: Carles Gomez, Responsible Area Director: Suresh Krishnan (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. A. Document shepherd has reviewed the -09 version of the document and provided comments. The -10 version of 6lo-nfc document is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? A. The document is ready for IESG review. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. A. Not applicable. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. A. It has been reviewed by a number of WG members and the shepherd. It is ready to advance. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? A. An IPR Disclosure has been filed and recorded in IETF page https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2653/ (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. A. Yes. There is no objection at the WG about the IPR filed for the document. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? A. The working group as a whole understands and agrees with the progress of this document. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) A. No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No issues found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. A. Not Applicable. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? A. Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? A. No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. A. None. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. This document will not update any base 6lo documents or existing RFCs. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). A. The document does not request any IANA change. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. A. Not Applicable (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? A. Not Applicable |
|
2019-03-05
|
13 | Suresh Krishnan | Ballot has been issued |
|
2019-03-05
|
13 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
|
2019-03-05
|
13 | Suresh Krishnan | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2019-03-05
|
13 | Suresh Krishnan | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2019-02-10
|
13 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
|
2019-02-10
|
13 | Younghwan Choi | New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13.txt |
|
2019-02-10
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-02-10
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, Dongkyun Kim <dongkyun@knu.ac.kr>, Younghwan Choi <yhc@etri.re.kr>, JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, Dongkyun Kim <dongkyun@knu.ac.kr>, Younghwan Choi <yhc@etri.re.kr>, JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>, Yong-Geun Hong <YGHONG@ETRI.RE.KR>, Joo-Sang Youn <joosang.youn@gmail.com> |
|
2019-02-10
|
13 | Younghwan Choi | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-01-29
|
12 | Suresh Krishnan | Notification list changed to Samita Chakrabarti <samitac.ietf@gmail.com>, Carles Gomez <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu> from Samita Chakrabarti <samitac.ietf@gmail.com> |
|
2019-01-29
|
12 | Suresh Krishnan | Document shepherd changed to Carles Gomez |
|
2019-01-10
|
12 | Jari Arkko | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: Jari Arkko. Sent review to list. |
|
2018-12-24
|
12 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
|
2018-12-21
|
12 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
|
2018-12-21
|
12 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-12, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-12, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
|
2018-12-19
|
12 | Qin Wu | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Qin Wu. Sent review to list. |
|
2018-12-17
|
12 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Wesley Eddy. Sent review to list. |
|
2018-12-13
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Jari Arkko |
|
2018-12-13
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Jari Arkko |
|
2018-12-13
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Leif Johansson |
|
2018-12-13
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Leif Johansson |
|
2018-12-11
|
12 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Qin Wu |
|
2018-12-11
|
12 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Qin Wu |
|
2018-12-10
|
12 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Wesley Eddy |
|
2018-12-10
|
12 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Wesley Eddy |
|
2018-12-10
|
12 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
|
2018-12-10
|
12 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-12-24):<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, samitac.ietf@gmail.com, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-12-24):<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, samitac.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-6lo-nfc@ietf.org, 6lo@ietf.org, Samita Chakrabarti <samitac.ietf@gmail.com>, suresh@kaloom.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-12.txt> (Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Near Field Communication) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes WG (6lo) to consider the following document: - 'Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Near Field Communication' <draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-12.txt> as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-12-24. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract Near field communication (NFC) is a set of standards for smartphones and portable devices to establish radio communication with each other by touching them together or bringing them into proximity, usually no more than 10 cm. NFC standards cover communications protocols and data exchange formats, and are based on existing radio-frequency identification (RFID) standards including ISO/IEC 14443 and FeliCa. The standards include ISO/IEC 18092 and those defined by the NFC Forum. The NFC technology has been widely implemented and available in mobile phones, laptop computers, and many other devices. This document describes how IPv6 is transmitted over NFC using 6LowPAN techniques. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-nfc/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-nfc/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2653/ |
|
2018-12-10
|
12 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2018-12-10
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was changed |
|
2018-12-09
|
12 | Suresh Krishnan | Last call was requested |
|
2018-12-09
|
12 | Suresh Krishnan | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2018-12-09
|
12 | Suresh Krishnan | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2018-12-09
|
12 | Suresh Krishnan | Ballot writeup was generated |
|
2018-12-09
|
12 | Suresh Krishnan | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
|
2018-11-05
|
12 | Younghwan Choi | New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-12.txt |
|
2018-11-05
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2018-11-05
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, Dongkyun Kim <dongkyun@knu.ac.kr>, Younghwan Choi <yhc@etri.re.kr>, JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, Dongkyun Kim <dongkyun@knu.ac.kr>, Younghwan Choi <yhc@etri.re.kr>, JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>, Yong-Geun Hong <YGHONG@ETRI.RE.KR>, Joo-Sang Youn <joosang.youn@gmail.com> |
|
2018-11-05
|
12 | Younghwan Choi | Uploaded new revision |
|
2018-09-30
|
11 | Younghwan Choi | New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-11.txt |
|
2018-09-30
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2018-09-30
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, Dongkyun Kim <dongkyun@knu.ac.kr>, Younghwan Choi <yhc@etri.re.kr>, JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, Dongkyun Kim <dongkyun@knu.ac.kr>, Younghwan Choi <yhc@etri.re.kr>, JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>, Yong-Geun Hong <YGHONG@ETRI.RE.KR>, Joo-Sang Youn <joosang.youn@gmail.com> |
|
2018-09-30
|
11 | Younghwan Choi | Uploaded new revision |
|
2018-09-25
|
10 | Brian Haberman | Request for Early review by IOTDIR Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: Brian Haberman. Sent review to list. |
|
2018-09-24
|
10 | Sheng Jiang | Request for Early review by INTDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Sheng Jiang. Sent review to list. |
|
2018-09-12
|
10 | Ari Keränen | Request for Early review by IOTDIR is assigned to Brian Haberman |
|
2018-09-12
|
10 | Ari Keränen | Request for Early review by IOTDIR is assigned to Brian Haberman |
|
2018-09-06
|
10 | Bernie Volz | Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Sheng Jiang |
|
2018-09-06
|
10 | Bernie Volz | Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Sheng Jiang |
|
2018-09-05
|
10 | Suresh Krishnan | Requested Early review by IOTDIR |
|
2018-09-05
|
10 | Suresh Krishnan | Requested Early review by INTDIR |
|
2018-09-05
|
10 | Suresh Krishnan | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
|
2018-08-26
|
10 | Samita Chakrabarti | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? A. draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-10 draft is a 'standards track' document. The intended status is indicated in the document header. Since it is defining ipv6-over NFC adaptation layer, it is standard track. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: Near field communication (NFC) is a set of standards for smartphones and portable devices to establish radio communication with each other by touching them together or bringing them into proximity, usually no more than 10 cm. The NFC technology has been widely implemented and available in mobile phones, laptop computers, and many other devices. This document describes how IPv6 is transmitted over NFC using 6LowPAN techniques. Considering the potential for exponential growth in the number of heterogeneous air interface technologies, NFC would be widely used as one of the other air interface technologies, such as Bluetooth Low Energy (BT-LE), Wi-Fi, and so on. Each of the heterogeneous air interface technologies has its own characteristics, which cannot be covered by the other technologies, so various kinds of air interface technologies would co-exist together. Therefore, it is required for them to communicate with each other. Running IPv6 over the various low power L2 technologies with the modified 6lowpan stack ensures interoperability among the devices with various heterogeneous air interfaces. Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? A. This document has been revised several times based on working group comments. It has been reviewed by several experienced 6lo working group members including Pascal Thubert and Dave Thaler who have been designated reviewers of this document. It has has also received shepherd's comments and went through two WGLC ( one short and one regular one). Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? A. The document has been reviewed and discussed by many 6lo experts in the WG including Pascal Thubert, Carsten Bormann, Dave Thaler, Samita Chakrabarti, Gabriel Montenegro, James Woodyatt, Alex Petrescue, Michael Richardson. An implementation of 6lo-NFC exists and they participated on a 6lo plugtests. The document effort is also socialized with NFC-Forum and they are well aware this document. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Document Shepherd: Samita Chakrabarti, Responsible Area Director: Suresh Krishnan (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. A. Document shepherd has reviewed the -09 version of the document and provided comments. The -10 version of 6lo-nfc document is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? A. The document is ready for IESG review. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. A. Not applicable. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. A. It has been reviewed by a number of WG members and the shepherd. It is ready to advance. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? A. An IPR Disclosure has been filed and recorded in IETF page https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2653/ (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. A. Yes. There is no objection at the WG about the IPR filed for the document. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? A. The working group as a whole understands and agrees with the progress of this document. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) A. No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No issues found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. A. Not Applicable. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? A. Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? A. No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. A. None. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. This document will not update any base 6lo documents or existing RFCs. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). A. The document does not request any IANA change. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. A. Not Applicable (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? A. Not Applicable |
|
2018-08-26
|
10 | Samita Chakrabarti | Responsible AD changed to Suresh Krishnan |
|
2018-08-26
|
10 | Samita Chakrabarti | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
|
2018-08-26
|
10 | Samita Chakrabarti | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
|
2018-08-26
|
10 | Samita Chakrabarti | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2018-08-26
|
10 | Samita Chakrabarti | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
|
2018-08-26
|
10 | Samita Chakrabarti | Changed document writeup |
|
2018-08-11
|
10 | Samita Chakrabarti | Notification list changed to Samita Chakrabarti <samitac.ietf@gmail.com> |
|
2018-08-11
|
10 | Samita Chakrabarti | Document shepherd changed to Samita Chakrabarti |
|
2018-07-17
|
10 | Younghwan Choi | New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-10.txt |
|
2018-07-17
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2018-07-17
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, Dongkyun Kim <dongkyun@knu.ac.kr>, Younghwan Choi <yhc@etri.re.kr>, JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, Dongkyun Kim <dongkyun@knu.ac.kr>, Younghwan Choi <yhc@etri.re.kr>, JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>, Yong-Geun Hong <YGHONG@ETRI.RE.KR>, Joo-Sang Youn <joosang.youn@gmail.com> |
|
2018-07-17
|
10 | Younghwan Choi | Uploaded new revision |
|
2018-07-16
|
09 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2018-03-05
|
09 | Gabriel Montenegro | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
|
2018-01-08
|
09 | Younghwan Choi | New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-09.txt |
|
2018-01-08
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2018-01-08
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, Dongkyun Kim <dongkyun@knu.ac.kr>, Younghwan Choi <yhc@etri.re.kr>, JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, Dongkyun Kim <dongkyun@knu.ac.kr>, Younghwan Choi <yhc@etri.re.kr>, JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>, Yong-Geun Hong <YGHONG@ETRI.RE.KR>, Joo-Sang Youn <joosang.youn@gmail.com> |
|
2018-01-08
|
09 | Younghwan Choi | Uploaded new revision |
|
2017-10-30
|
08 | Younghwan Choi | New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-08.txt |
|
2017-10-30
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2017-10-30
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, Dongkyun Kim <dongkyun@knu.ac.kr>, Younghwan Choi <yhc@etri.re.kr>, JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, Dongkyun Kim <dongkyun@knu.ac.kr>, Younghwan Choi <yhc@etri.re.kr>, JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>, Yong-Geun Hong <YGHONG@ETRI.RE.KR>, Joo-Sang Youn <joosang.youn@gmail.com> |
|
2017-10-30
|
08 | Younghwan Choi | Uploaded new revision |
|
2017-06-04
|
07 | Younghwan Choi | New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-07.txt |
|
2017-06-04
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2017-06-04
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, Dongkyun Kim <dongkyun@knu.ac.kr>, Younghwan Choi <yhc@etri.re.kr>, JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, Dongkyun Kim <dongkyun@knu.ac.kr>, Younghwan Choi <yhc@etri.re.kr>, JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>, Yong-Geun Hong <YGHONG@ETRI.RE.KR>, Joo-Sang Youn <joosang.youn@gmail.com> |
|
2017-06-04
|
07 | Younghwan Choi | Uploaded new revision |
|
2017-03-07
|
06 | Younghwan Choi | New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-06.txt |
|
2017-03-07
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2017-03-07
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, Younghwan Choi <yhc@etri.re.kr>, Joo-Sang Youn <joosang.youn@gmail.com>, Yong-Geun Hong <YGHONG@ETRI.RE.KR> |
|
2017-03-07
|
06 | Younghwan Choi | Uploaded new revision |
|
2016-10-14
|
05 | Younghwan Choi | New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-05.txt |
|
2016-10-14
|
05 | (System) | Posted submission manually |
|
2016-10-11
|
04 | (System) | Uploaded new revision |
|
2016-07-08
|
04 | Yong-Geun Hong | New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-04.txt |
|
2016-03-21
|
03 | Yong-Geun Hong | New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-03.txt |
|
2015-10-17
|
02 | Yong-Geun Hong | New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-02.txt |
|
2015-10-14
|
01 | (System) | Notify list changed from "james woodyatt" <jhw@nestlabs.com> to (None) |
|
2015-08-19
|
Naveen Khan | Posted related IPR disclosure: Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI)'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-6lo-nfc | |
|
2015-07-05
|
01 | Yong-Geun Hong | New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-01.txt |
|
2015-03-03
|
00 | Gabriel Montenegro | This document now replaces draft-hong-6lo-ipv6-over-nfc instead of None |
|
2015-03-03
|
00 | Gabriel Montenegro | Notification list changed to "james woodyatt" <jhw@nestlabs.com> |
|
2015-03-03
|
00 | Gabriel Montenegro | Document shepherd changed to james woodyatt |
|
2015-03-03
|
00 | Gabriel Montenegro | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
|
2015-03-03
|
00 | Naveen Khan | New revision available |