From nobody Wed Nov 2 10:57:13 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC791293EB; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:57:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zZzSp06Si20t; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:57:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf0-x236.google.com (mail-pf0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0626129562; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:57:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf0-x236.google.com with SMTP id d2so15764546pfd.0; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 10:57:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=9o/sLccsRpAFWfFdZoiQkC7vvf1mv0VdyxTn23DROm0=; b=AbQB/rfMIgNsipLnAw8srELIVP1uF1MMNq7n3Il3Y81EJFCeXabOloSLjD8Mi5rbQr BYTInHV0LyinMvMATEyc/vuvOJBo/8Mb/JrH68oFXicS3WSX4E7nJO5smprVhrTJjv8z zggBYDI12PuOo0xPA7GGKvKwCEH9k5a0AHJCzwBH1wdk9E7os/XJT/Jf1u8TJcdDmsBN IKH9bmM+4LZQcRV/gj5K3E5TgkZMoRqrerXnEm7Loh77l8AHv2bbcwRW92PGZdAR+qAM ZkITCWdPIDx2ACpYRm50bjZjMPUm5neIjV0B2HHAFxgW/pkY2W8dKz/K6Br4hJUWtNVq Fgeg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=9o/sLccsRpAFWfFdZoiQkC7vvf1mv0VdyxTn23DROm0=; b=JXrMNHx3DAomqvSWBUT9/J82abIQqsbm4MMuN01f+vk5kb4pBDrUfNV/Ydcf1h5xrz D1Uzd99fVg7i9u2cf3+CyOhisLTUZtmHe74FSd9EOcBgVoxZvrD0d/dCM6bG2kn54KkW 8VYyui4JEZ5fTpTCfTsoe0rtyS/Qi08Vl0GvgQzeJrzT+ulypA4xdqsRT85NWKIxk614 yn8gZ2rfizevk7OdQFwgLEfaMFf6xABBnKPzYqK7+GijNBx6+A7NXGr/fUkP1wuB04dX KkBfkqDt6myTukJea7yrrRs47YylYaYcJ/+7hJvk4pFEb8x8IAT8ABEdOJM09MoL4pcK xDIg== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvf+Z2p03huJOUctU8uz1fEsS+Y7YcG20sNP5wMcnzUH3kmre/D1E4Pve3svg3Wh7w== X-Received: by 10.98.207.195 with SMTP id b186mr8992200pfg.40.1478109430415; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 10:57:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcpw6-sj1-2.sj.broadcom.com ([216.31.219.19]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 123sm6307131pfe.41.2016.11.02.10.57.09 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 02 Nov 2016 10:57:09 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.1 \(3251\)) From: "jouni.nospam" In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:57:06 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <50D3D01D-D321-490F-9D7A-D054B45349F1@gmail.com> References: To: Dave Thaler X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3251) Archived-At: Cc: "int-ads@tools.ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-6lo-privacy-considerations.all@ietf.org" , "" Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Int-Dir review of draft-ietf-6lo-privacy-considerations-03 X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 17:57:13 -0000 Hi Dave, > On Oct 31, 2016, at 12:26 PM, Dave Thaler = wrote: >=20 > > 1) Page 4 first paragraph states it takes a year to scan 26 bit of = id space. > > Even if the math is given in the next paragraph it is not clear = what are > > the assumptions to number of devices per link. I take it is one = device on > > that link. >=20 > The statement you=E2=80=99re referring to is independent of the number = of devices per link. The text says: > Generation of ICMP unreachable errors is typically rate limited to = 2 > per second (the default in routers such as Cisco routers running = IOS > 12.0 or later). Such a rate results in taking about a year to > completely scan 26 bits of space. > =20 > It=E2=80=99s simply a statement of time to completely scan a number of = addresses. To scan 2^26 addresses at 2/second, it takes > 2^26 =3D 67108864 addresses at 2 addresses per second =3D 33554432 = seconds =3D 388.36 days or =E2=80=9Cabout a year=E2=80=9D > =20 > So no such assumption about the number of devices per link is relevant = here, it=E2=80=99s just simple math. Okay. Seemed to be too simple for me to comprehend ;) Thanks for = explaining. > =20 > > 2) Page 5 table has "6 or ???" for NFC.. it would be good to either = replace "???" with > > something meaningful or explain why "???". >=20 > An earlier version of the NFC draft was unclear as to whether there = was an alternative. In the current NFC draft there=20 > is no alternative but now it=E2=80=99s only 5 bits, since section 3.3 = of the latest NFC draft says: > NFC-enabled devices are identified by 6-bit LLC address. In other > words, Any address SHALL be usable as both an SSAP and a DSAP > address. According to NFCForum-TS-LLCP_1.1 [3], address values > between 0 and 31 (00h - 1Fh) SHALL be reserved for well-known = service > access points for Service Discovery Protocol (SDP). Address values > between 32 and 63 (20h - 3Fh) inclusively, SHALL be assigned by the > local LLC as the result of an upper layer service request. > =20 > So only values 32-63 are relevant for normal addresses and I have now = changed =E2=80=9C6 or ???=E2=80=9D to =E2=80=9C5=E2=80=9D, since it = seems > 0-31 are like anycast addresses similar to RFC 2526 if I understand = correctly.=20 Ok. Thanks. - Jouni > =20 > I will submit an update today before the deadline. > =20 > Dave > =20 > From: jouni korhonen [mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com]=20 > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 9:44 AM > To: ; int-ads@tools.ietf.org; = draft-ietf-6lo-privacy-considerations.all@ietf.org > Subject: Int-Dir review of draft-ietf-6lo-privacy-considerations-03 > =20 > I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for = draft-ietf-6lo-privacy-considerations-03. These comments were written = primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document = editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would = treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along = with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more = details on the INT Directorate, = seehttp://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html. >=20 > Document: draft-ietf-6lo-privacy-considerations-03 > Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen > Review Date: 9/22/2016 > IETF LC End Date: > IESG Telechat date: (if known) >=20 > Summary: Ready >=20 > Major issues: None >=20 > Minor issues: None >=20 > Nits/editorial comments: >=20 > 1) Page 4 first paragraph states it takes a year to scan 26 bit of id = space. Even if the math is given in the next paragraph it is not clear = what are the assumptions to number of devices per link. I take it is one = device on that link. >=20 > 2) Page 5 table has "6 or ???" for NFC.. it would be good to either = replace "???" with something meaningful or explain why "???". >=20 > Regards, > Jouni