Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-15.txt>

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Tue, 09 August 2011 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BB1621F8C94 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.472
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.472 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.127, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EXCc59-LuVyv for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F0DB21F8C93 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=pthubert@cisco.com; l=2904; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1312909482; x=1314119082; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=Sdbs47hNMd6YVIoKjERMIajNLy6H656OnBqQR3neUZw=; b=SFi/WVAD/lZHXwIBAZcgzMUewac+G9bDDixnBLzLpX+TX3Fff0kgBTlt v3l7rFFrHAorl6/txmFwMrmMR6zcQLmWf3yF3wPLN8NLaWuqlNi0Mdz2A o48/QyBWhxv7JdvqNU5IA5U/b89npcY3J7cBqfOOnDPs7LwLNzfXsefDu M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuAAAGdoQU6Q/khM/2dsb2JhbABCl2CPXneBQAEBAQEDEgEdCj8MBAIBCA4DBAEBAQoGFwEGAUUJCAEBBAESCBqHT6APAZ5rhWdfBJgXi1s
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,344,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="48300714"
Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Aug 2011 17:04:41 +0000
Received: from xbh-ams-201.cisco.com (xbh-ams-201.cisco.com [144.254.75.7]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p79H4frk003050; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 17:04:41 GMT
Received: from xmb-ams-107.cisco.com ([144.254.74.82]) by xbh-ams-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 9 Aug 2011 19:04:40 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 19:04:37 +0200
Message-ID: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3C92@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <430C1B59-E048-4CC7-9E75-EF4E54D1104F@amsl.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-15.txt>
Thread-Index: AcxWpVncV4aTcfJjQVW31kgCp73jAQAEMVMQ
References: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05228480@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <DE69914A-2813-4044-AEA7-A716FE2157CE@tzi.org> <56748029-05E7-4B09-8C50-C9EADD5629A0@tzi.org> <430C1B59-E048-4CC7-9E75-EF4E54D1104F@amsl.com>
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: "Megan Ferguson" <mferguson@amsl.com>, "Carsten Bormann" <cabo@tzi.org>, "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Aug 2011 17:04:40.0967 (UTC) FILETIME=[6D98D170:01CC56B6]
Cc: 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org, 6lowpan <6lowpan@ietf.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-15.txt>
X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowpan>
List-Post: <mailto:6lowpan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:04:13 -0000

Hello Megan

I think that for consistency:

   LOWPAN_HC1 and LOWPAN_HC2 are insufficient for most practical uses of
   IPv6 in 6LoWPANs.  LOWPAN_HC1 is most effective for link-local

Should also become

   LOWPAN_HC1 and LOWPAN_HC2 are insufficient for most practical uses of
   IPv6 in IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks. LOWPAN_HC1 is most effective
for link-local

Don't you think?

Pascal


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Megan Ferguson [mailto:mferguson@amsl.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 5:02 PM
> To: Carsten Bormann; Ralph Droms (rdroms); Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> Cc: 6lowpan; RFC Editor; 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282
<draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-
> 15.txt>
> 
> Carsten, Pascal, and *ADs,
> 
> Thank you for your reply.  We have updated the title as requested.
Please
> note that we have also updated the expansion of 6LoWPAN (in the text)
to
> match that in the title of RFC 4919.  Additionally, we have updated
the short
> title that appears in the running header of the document (this is best
> reviewed in the text file below).  Please review and approve these
updates
> or let us know if a different approach in either of these additional
updates
> would be preferable.
> 
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6282-lastdiff.html
> 
> The text, XML, and comprehensive diff files are viewable at:
> 
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6282.txt
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6282.xml
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6282-diff.html
> 
> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view
> the most recent version of the document.  Please review the document
> carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once the
> document has been published as an RFC.
> 
> Upon careful review, please contact us with any further updates or
with
> your approval of the document in its current form.
> 
> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> 
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc6282
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> RFC Editor/mf
> 
> On Aug 8, 2011, at 1:44 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> 
> > OK, I have reread all the messages, and I'm now ready to declare a
(rough)
> consensus for
> >
> > 	Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-based
> Networks
> >
> > (with an ever so slight edge for the -based, which is different from
RFC
> 4944, but "Datagrams" is different, too).
> >
> > While there were a number of voices for keeping 6LoWPAN in the title
(as
> in RFC 4919), there did not seem to be consensus for that.
> >
> > I apologize for holding up this RFC for so long for what is pretty
much a
> bikeshed color issue.
> >
> > And, yes, I'm slowly getting back to IETF work, and will try to
start popping
> the stack.
> >
> > Gruesse, Carsten
> >