Re: [6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs

Robert Cragie <> Thu, 07 July 2011 12:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5474921F85B4 for <>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 05:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pf0MVDQJQAuU for <>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 05:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C3A221F86AA for <>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 05:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([] helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1Qenay-0002iy-9K for; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 13:22:16 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 13:23:19 +0100
From: Robert Cragie <>
Organization: Gridmerge Ltd.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-GB; rv: Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms070500000501030606060308"
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs
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: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 12:22:19 -0000


I don't think we should get too hung up on WPAN. It's just a name chosen 
for 802.15 WG. It's subjective as to how appropriate it really is. To be 
precise, 802.15.4 is the low power, low data rate WPAN in 802.15 so 
loWPAN is a reasonable, pronounceable abbreviation which implies 
802.15.4 in the context of 802.15 but could mean other similar types of 
network in other contexts.


On 29/06/2011 12:45 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> Hi Carsten:
> Maybe the answer depends on the draft.
> HC depends on the 802.15.4 for some of the compression procedure and it
> makes sense that this appears in the title.
> ND does not have such a strong link to the MAC so there is no point
> pinpointing 802.15.4 or any specific IEEE.
> Rather, ND makes sense because of the NBMA nature of the network, and
> the desire to save multicast operation, which is common to LLNs.
> So I do not think we need to change ND.
> Finally, 6LoWPAN as a name as become a lot more than what the acronym
> could initially stand for. I do not think the drafts should use 6LoWPAN
> for what it expands to, but rather as the name of the WG that defined
> all those drafts.
> Cheers,
> Pascal
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [] On
>> Behalf Of Carsten Bormann
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:20 PM
>> To: 6lowpan WG
>> Subject: [6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list