Subject: [6lo] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 07:50:13 -0700

Alissa Cooper 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.