Subject: [6lo] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 06:49:29 -0700

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.

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.