Re: [6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Jonathan:


> Alternatively, since draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc is only concerned about the
IEEE
> 802.15.4 frames and not the full IEEE 802.15.4 spec, we could have the
> following as well:
>     "Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-based
> Networks"
> or
>     "Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams in IEEE 802.15.4 Frames"
>

Either works for me. I think the latter is even better.

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Jonathan Hui
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 7:39 PM
> To: Carsten Bormann
> Cc: 6lowpan WG
> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs
> 
> 
> For draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc, we should drop the 6LoWPAN acronym and
leave
> it at "IEEE 802.15.4 Networks".  On one hand, draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc is
a bit
> more specific than low-power and lossy networks - it assumes IEEE
802.15.4
> addressing at the link layer.  On the other hand,
draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc is a bit
> more generic than Wireless Personal Area Networks.  IEEE 802.15.4
(while a
> part of the WPAN working group) already has IEEE task groups (some
> relatively mature) that are extending IEEE 802.15.4 to other types of
> networks (Smart Utility Networks, Active RFID, Industrial Networks,
etc. -
> many of which are far from being personal and are significantly
different
> from IEEE 802.15.4-2003/2006).  Then there is IEEE P1901.2 (PLC) which
is
> planning to use IEEE 802.15.4 frames.
> 
> Note that RFC 4944's title is "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE
802.15.4
> Networks".  draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc updates RFC 4944.
> 
> Following that view, we could have:
>     "Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks".
> 
> 
> --
> Jonathan Hui
> 
> On Jun 29, 2011, at 4:20 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> 
> > While completing the RFC editor work for 6LoWPAN-HC, the issue of
> > supplying correct and useful titles for our RFCs came up again.
> > You may recall that we went through a little bit of discussion
already
> > for 6LoWPAN-ND, which has the same problem.
> >
> > The exposition of the problem takes a couple of paragraphs, so bear
> > with me, please.
> >
> > Superficially, one part of the problem is that the marker that
people
> > are using to find our work, 6LoWPAN, was built out of the WPAN
> > abbreviation invented by IEEE.
> >
> > One issue with that is that, strictly speaking, 6LoWPAN would
require
> > a double expansion in an RFC title as in
> >
> > 6LoWPAN (IPv6 over Low Power WPAN (Wireless Personal Area
> Networks))
> >
> > WPAN also is a bad short-term politically motivated term -- it was
> > needed in IEEE to get the 802.15.4 radio accepted under 802.15.
> > WPAN ("Wireless Personal Area Networks") is highly misleading, as
> > there is nothing at all "Personal Area" about 802.15.4 WPANs.
> > The deciding characteristic is the low-power, limited-range design
> > (which, as a consequence, also causes the additional characteristic
of
> > lossiness that ROLL has chosen for its "Low-Power/Lossy" moniker).
> >
> > Still, the misleading four letters WPAN are part of the now
well-known
> > "6LoWPAN" acronym, and we may need to use this acronym to make sure
> > the document is perceived in the right scope.
> >
> > In the recent history of 6LoWPAN-HC being fixed up to address WGLC
> > comments, there was a silent title change.
> >
> > HC-13 used the title: (September 27, 2010)
> >       Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams in 6LoWPAN Networks
> > HC-14 changed this to: (February 14, 2011)
> >        Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams in Low Power and
> >                       Lossy Networks (6LoWPAN)
> >
> > This borrows ROLL's term "Low-Power and Lossy Networks", which may
> > seem natural to the authors, who have done a lot of work in ROLL.
> > Note that the ROLL WG has a wider scope than the 6LoWPAN WG (it is
at
> > layer three, connecting different link layer technologies), so it
may
> > be useful to retain a distinction between 6LoWPANs and LLNs.
> >
> > Specifically, 6LoWPAN-HC as defined has a lot of dependencies on
> > RFC 4944 and IEEE 802.15.4, so using it as-is in generic "LLNs"
would
> > be inappropriate.  (It sure can be adapted for many non-6LoWPAN
LLNs,
> > but that would be a separate draft.)
> >
> > 6LoWPAN-ND has a similar problem.  Indeed, some of the concepts of
> > 6LoWPAN-ND may be applicable to a lot of networks that benefit from
> > relying less on multicast.  In an attempt to widen the scope, there
> > was a title change when we rebooted the ND work to simplify it:
> >
> > ND-08: (February 1, 2010)
> >                       6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery
> > ND-09: (April 27, 2010)
> >    Neighbor Discovery Optimization for Low-power and Lossy Networks
> >
> > However, the document as it passed WGLC still is focused on 6LoWPANs
> > (e.g., it contains specific support for 6COs).
> >
> > For both HC and ND, I don't think we properly discussed the
attempted
> > title changes in the WG.
> >
> > So what are the specific issues to be decided?
> > I see at least:
> >
> > -- Should we drop the 6LoWPAN marker from our documents?
> >   (Note that RFC 4944 doesn't have it, but in the 4 years since, the
> >   term has gained some recognition.)
> >   Should there be another common marker?
> >   -- E.g., should we change over the whole documents (HC, ND) to
LLN?
> >   -- Should we just refer to IEEE 802.15.4 in the title (no
6LoWPAN)?
> >      HC = Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4
> Networks
> >      ND = Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IEEE 802.15.4 Networks
> >   -- Or should we stick with 6LoWPAN in both title and body?
> > -- If the latter, what is an appropriate expansion of 6LoWPAN?
> >   Can we get rid of the "Personal" in the expansion?
> >   -- IPv6 over Low power Wireless Personal Area Networks [RFC4944]
> >   -- IPv6-based Low power Wireless Personal Area Networks [RFC4944]
> >   -- IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks
> >   -- IPv6-based Low-power WPANs
> >   -- Other ideas?
> > -- Whatever we decide about the above:
> >   What is the relationship between the well-known term 6LoWPAN and
> >   ROLL LLNs?
> >
> > Since 6LoWPAN-HC is waiting in the RFC editor queue, blocked for
just
> > this title issue, I'd like to resolve these questions quickly.
> > Please provide your reasoned opinion to this mailing list by July 1.
> >
> > Gruesse, Carsten
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 6lowpan mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan