Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-19: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-19 CC @larseggert ## Discuss ### Section 9, paragraph 2 ``` [LLCP-1.4] "NFC Logical Link Control Protocol, Version 1.4", NFC Forum Technical Specification , January 2021. ``` Eric raised this for -13 in 2019 already: this specification does not seem to be publicly available? Did the NFC forum share a copy with the IETF WG that you could forward to the IESG for our review? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ## Comments ### Section 3.4, paragraph 7 ``` When the MIUX parameter is used, 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. ``` Figure 2 shows that the V field is split into 4 bits and 12 bits, not 11? Also, the four bits are not zero? ### DOWNREFs DOWNREF `[RFC3756]` from this Proposed Standard to Informational `RFC3756`. (For IESG discussion. It seems this DOWNREF was not mentioned in the Last Call and also seems to not appear in the DOWNREF registry.) ### Inclusive language Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more guidance: * Term `man`; alternatives might be `individual`, `people`, `person` ## Nits All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. ### Typos #### Section 3.1, paragraph 1 ``` - is used for IPv6 over NFC. - ^^ + MUST be used for IPv6 over NFC. + ^^^^^^^ ``` ### Outdated references Reference `[RFC3633]` to `RFC3633`, which was obsoleted by `RFC8415` (this may be on purpose). ### Grammar/style #### Section 4.2, paragraph 4 ``` pology. NFC supports mesh topologies but most of all applications would use a ^^^^ ``` Use a comma before "but" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they are closely connected and short). ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
