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

"Timothy J. Salo" <> Sat, 23 July 2011 19:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4067921F8ABB for <>; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 12:10:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.307
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k4goB0cPuG8n for <>; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 12:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B05921F8A66 for <>; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 12:10:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6NJAMC2004959; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 14:10:23 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 14:10:26 -0500
From: "Timothy J. Salo" <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 6lowpan <>,,
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-15.txt>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 19:10:50 -0000

> It is a bit hard to diagnose a consensus here, except that
> the clear WG consensus seems to be that nobody cares much :-)
> It is indeed pretty clear from the extended WG discussion that
> 	Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-based Networks
> or
> 	Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-based Networks
> is the important part of the title.

I think that the name should speak to a large audience (not just the
working group or even just the IETF) and should make sense for many

The "-based" part of the name seems something between subtle and
extraneous.  If you want to emphasize that this RFC doesn't require
or use a full implementation of IEEE 802.15.4, this should be
highlighted in the text, not in the title.

> We don't seem to have full consensus on whether 6LoWPAN should be part of the title.
> Jonathan would like to keep it out, others have indicated that they think it should
> be part of the title (as it was during WGLC and IETF last call).

"6lowpan", I believe, fails the test of speaking to a broader audience
and having longevity.  Today, few people know what 6lowpan means, and
in the future it will be merely an interesting (or not-so-interesting)
historical footnote.  Using "6lowpan" feels sort of like using a
development code name for a marketing name.

> Megan has indicated that 6LoWPAN would be expanded as in RFC 4919:
>      IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):

I think that the term "personal area networks" is, well, archaic.
That is not how IEEE 802.15.4 is being used and not how these
specifications are being used.  Rather, I think we all hope that
this technology will be used for much more than personal area

Carsten made essentially this argument in his original e-mail.

This reasoning suggests that "6lowpan" doesn't add any value to the
title, since it embeds an acronym that we don't really believe.

RFC 4944, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks",
contains neither "based", "6lowpan", nor "personal area networks" in
its title.

> I think the best of both worlds would be
> 	Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-based Networks (6LoWPANs)
> but I'd need input from the RFC editor whether that can be done without
> falling into the expansion trap.

Again, I think that "6lowpan" is, or soon will be, historical trivia.
It's a title that, while we as a working group might have some affection
for, we don't really believe it.