| < draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-03.txt | draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-04.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6Lo Working Group Y-G. Hong | 6Lo Working Group Y-H. Choi | |||
| Internet-Draft Y-H. Choi | Internet-Draft Y-G. Hong | |||
| Intended status: Standards Track ETRI | Intended status: Standards Track ETRI | |||
| Expires: September 22, 2016 J-S. Youn | Expires: January 9, 2017 J-S. Youn | |||
| DONG-EUI Univ | DONG-EUI Univ | |||
| D-K. Kim | D-K. Kim | |||
| KNU | KNU | |||
| J-H. Choi | J-H. Choi | |||
| Samsung Electronics Co., | Samsung Electronics Co., | |||
| March 21, 2016 | July 8, 2016 | |||
| Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Near Field Communication | Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Near Field Communication | |||
| draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-03 | draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-04 | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| Near field communication (NFC) is a set of standards for smartphones | Near field communication (NFC) is a set of standards for smartphones | |||
| and portable devices to establish radio communication with each other | and portable devices to establish radio communication with each other | |||
| by touching them together or bringing them into proximity, usually no | by touching them together or bringing them into proximity, usually no | |||
| more than 10 cm. NFC standards cover communications protocols and | more than 10 cm. NFC standards cover communications protocols and | |||
| data exchange formats, and are based on existing radio-frequency | data exchange formats, and are based on existing radio-frequency | |||
| identification (RFID) standards including ISO/IEC 14443 and FeliCa. | identification (RFID) standards including ISO/IEC 14443 and FeliCa. | |||
| The standards include ISO/IEC 18092 and those defined by the NFC | The standards include ISO/IEC 18092 and those defined by the NFC | |||
| skipping to change at page 1, line 46 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 46 ¶ | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
| working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
| Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
| time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| This Internet-Draft will expire on September 22, 2016. | This Internet-Draft will expire on January 5, 2017. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
| document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
| This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
| Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
| (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
| publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
| skipping to change at page 5, line 15 ¶ | skipping to change at page 5, line 15 ¶ | |||
| 3.2. Protocol Stacks of NFC | 3.2. Protocol Stacks of NFC | |||
| The IP protocol can use the services provided by Logical Link Control | The IP protocol can use the services provided by Logical Link Control | |||
| Protocol (LLCP) in the NFC stack to provide reliable, two-way | Protocol (LLCP) in the NFC stack to provide reliable, two-way | |||
| transport of information between the peer devices. Figure 1 depicts | transport of information between the peer devices. Figure 1 depicts | |||
| the NFC P2P protocol stack with IPv6 bindings to the LLCP. | the NFC P2P protocol stack with IPv6 bindings to the LLCP. | |||
| For data communication in IPv6 over NFC, an IPv6 packet SHALL be | For data communication in IPv6 over NFC, an IPv6 packet SHALL be | |||
| received at LLCP of NFC and transported to an Information Field in | received at LLCP of NFC and transported to an Information Field in | |||
| Protocol Data Unit (I PDU) of LLCP of the NFC-enabled peer device. | Protocol Data Unit (I PDU) of LLCP of the NFC-enabled peer device. | |||
| Since LLCP does not support fragmentation and reassembly, upper | LLCP does not support fragmentation and reassembly. For IPv6 | |||
| layers SHOULD support fragmentation and reassembly. For IPv6 | ||||
| addressing or address configuration, LLCP SHALL provide related | addressing or address configuration, LLCP SHALL provide related | |||
| information, such as link layer addresses, to its upper layer. LLCP | information, such as link layer addresses, to its upper layer. LLCP | |||
| to IPv6 protocol Binding SHALL transfer the SSAP and DSAP value to | to IPv6 protocol Binding SHALL transfer the SSAP and DSAP value to | |||
| the IPv6 over NFC protocol. SSAP stands for Source Service Access | the IPv6 over NFC protocol. SSAP stands for Source Service Access | |||
| Point, which is 6-bit value meaning a kind of Logical Link Control | Point, which is 6-bit value meaning a kind of Logical Link Control | |||
| (LLC) address, while DSAP means a LLC address of destination NFC- | (LLC) address, while DSAP means a LLC address of destination NFC- | |||
| enabled device. | enabled device. | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| | | Application Layer | | | Application Layer | |||
| skipping to change at page 8, line 18 ¶ | skipping to change at page 8, line 18 ¶ | |||
| field. The unused bits in the TLV Value field SHALL be set to zero | field. The unused bits in the TLV Value field SHALL be set to zero | |||
| by the sender and SHALL be ignored by the receiver. However, a | by the sender and SHALL be ignored by the receiver. However, a | |||
| maximun value of the TLV Value field can be 0x7FF, and a maximum size | maximun value of the TLV Value field can be 0x7FF, and a maximum size | |||
| of the MTU in NFC LLCP SHALL calculate 2176 bytes. | of the MTU in NFC LLCP SHALL calculate 2176 bytes. | |||
| 4. Specification of IPv6 over NFC | 4. Specification of IPv6 over NFC | |||
| NFC technology sets also has considerations and requirements owing to | NFC technology sets also has considerations and requirements owing to | |||
| low power consumption and allowed protocol overhead. 6LoWPAN | low power consumption and allowed protocol overhead. 6LoWPAN | |||
| standards RFC4944 [1], RFC6775 [4], and RFC6282 [5] provide useful | standards RFC4944 [1], RFC6775 [4], and RFC6282 [5] provide useful | |||
| functionality for reducing overhead which can be applied to BT-LE. | functionality for reducing overhead which can be applied to NFC. | |||
| This functionality comprises of link-local IPv6 addresses and | This functionality comprises of link-local IPv6 addresses and | |||
| stateless IPv6 address auto-configuration (see Section 4.3), Neighbor | stateless IPv6 address auto-configuration (see Section 4.3), Neighbor | |||
| Discovery (see Section 4.5) and header compression (see Section 4.7). | Discovery (see Section 4.5) and header compression (see Section 4.7). | |||
| One of the differences between IEEE 802.15.4 and NFC is that the | One of the differences between IEEE 802.15.4 and NFC is that the | |||
| former supports both star and mesh topology (and requires a routing | former supports both star and mesh topology (and requires a routing | |||
| protocol), whereas NFC can support direct peer-to-peer connection and | protocol), whereas NFC can support direct peer-to-peer connection and | |||
| simple mesh-like topology depending on NFC application scenarios | simple mesh-like topology depending on NFC application scenarios | |||
| because of very short RF distance of 10 cm or less. | because of very short RF distance of 10 cm or less. | |||
| skipping to change at page 9, line 38 ¶ | skipping to change at page 9, line 38 ¶ | |||
| address auto-configuration, header compression, and fragmentation & | address auto-configuration, header compression, and fragmentation & | |||
| reassembly. | reassembly. | |||
| 4.2. Link Model | 4.2. Link Model | |||
| In the case of BT-LE, Logical Link Control and Adaptation Protocol | In the case of BT-LE, Logical Link Control and Adaptation Protocol | |||
| (L2CAP) supports fragmentation and reassembly (FAR) functionality; | (L2CAP) supports fragmentation and reassembly (FAR) functionality; | |||
| therefore, adaptation layer for IPv6 over BT-LE does not have to | therefore, adaptation layer for IPv6 over BT-LE does not have to | |||
| conduct the FAR procedure. The NFC LLCP, by contrast, does not | conduct the FAR procedure. The NFC LLCP, by contrast, does not | |||
| support the FAR functionality, so IPv6 over NFC needs to consider the | support the FAR functionality, so IPv6 over NFC needs to consider the | |||
| FAR functionality, defined in RFC4944 [1]. However, MTU on NFC link | FAR functionality, defined in RFC4944 [1] if it is required. | |||
| can be configured in a connection procedure and extended enough to | However, MTU on NFC link can be configured in a connection procedure | |||
| fit the MTU of IPv6 packet. | and extended enough to fit the MTU of IPv6 packet. (see Section 4.8) | |||
| The NFC link between two communicating devices is considered to be a | The NFC link between two communicating devices is considered to be a | |||
| point-to-point link only. Unlike in BT-LE, NFC link does not | point-to-point link only. Unlike in BT-LE, NFC link does not | |||
| consider star topology and mesh network topology but peer-to-peer | consider star topology and mesh network topology but direct | |||
| topology and simple multi-hop topology. Due to this characteristics, | connections between two devices. Furthermore, NFC link layer does | |||
| 6LoWPAN functionality, such as addressing and auto-configuration, and | not support mesh-under protocols. Due to this characteristics, | |||
| header compression, is specialized into NFC. | 6LoWPAN functionalities, such as addressing and auto-configuration, | |||
| and header compression, need to be specialized into IPv6 over NFC. | ||||
| 4.3. Stateless Address Autoconfiguration | 4.3. Stateless Address Autoconfiguration | |||
| A NFC-enabled device (i.e., 6LN) performs stateless address | A NFC-enabled device (i.e., 6LN) performs stateless address | |||
| autoconfiguration as per RFC4862 [6]. A 64-bit Interface identifier | autoconfiguration as per RFC4862 [6]. A 64-bit Interface identifier | |||
| (IID) for a NFC interface is formed by utilizing the 6-bit NFC LLCP | (IID) for a NFC interface is formed by utilizing the 6-bit NFC LLCP | |||
| address (i.e., SSAP or DSAP) (see Section 3.3). In the viewpoint of | address (i.e., SSAP or DSAP) (see Section 3.3). In the viewpoint of | |||
| address configuration, such an IID MAY guarantee a stable IPv6 | address configuration, such an IID MAY guarantee a stable IPv6 | |||
| address because each data link connection is uniquely identified by | 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 | the pair of DSAP and SSAP included in the header of each LLC PDU in | |||
| skipping to change at page 17, line 35 ¶ | skipping to change at page 17, line 35 ¶ | |||
| (6LoWPANs)", RFC 7400, DOI 10.17487/RFC7400, November | (6LoWPANs)", RFC 7400, DOI 10.17487/RFC7400, November | |||
| 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7400>. | 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7400>. | |||
| 9.2. Informative References | 9.2. Informative References | |||
| [12] "Near Field Communication - Interface and Protocol (NFCIP- | [12] "Near Field Communication - Interface and Protocol (NFCIP- | |||
| 1) 3rd Ed.", ECMA-340 , June 2013. | 1) 3rd Ed.", ECMA-340 , June 2013. | |||
| Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
| Yong-Geun Hong | Younghwan Choi | |||
| ETRI | ETRI | |||
| 161 Gajeong-Dong Yuseung-Gu | 218 Gajeongno, Yuseong | |||
| Daejeon 305-700 | Daejeon 305-700 | |||
| Korea | Korea | |||
| Phone: +82 42 860 6557 | Phone: +82 42 860 1429 | |||
| Email: yghong@etri.re.kr | Email: yhc@etri.re.kr | |||
| Younghwan Choi | Yong-Geun Hong | |||
| ETRI | ETRI | |||
| 218 Gajeongno, Yuseong | 161 Gajeong-Dong Yuseung-Gu | |||
| Daejeon 305-700 | Daejeon 305-700 | |||
| Korea | Korea | |||
| Phone: +82 42 860 1429 | Phone: +82 42 860 6557 | |||
| Email: yhc@etri.re.kr | Email: yghong@etri.re.kr | |||
| Joo-Sang Youn | Joo-Sang Youn | |||
| DONG-EUI University | DONG-EUI University | |||
| 176 Eomgwangno Busan_jin_gu | 176 Eomgwangno Busan_jin_gu | |||
| Busan 614-714 | Busan 614-714 | |||
| Korea | Korea | |||
| Phone: +82 51 890 1993 | Phone: +82 51 890 1993 | |||
| Email: joosang.youn@gmail.com | Email: joosang.youn@gmail.com | |||
| Dongkyun Kim | Dongkyun Kim | |||
| End of changes. 15 change blocks. | ||||
| 24 lines changed or deleted | 24 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||