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

[geoff <[e-mail]>]

Thank you.

On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 15:21 -0400, Ralph Droms wrote:
> Megan - to be clear, I'm satisfied that the most recent version of the document is ready to publish...
> 
> - Ralph
> 
> On Aug 10, 2011, at 3:02 PM 8/10/11, Ralph Droms wrote:
> 
> > Well, characterizations as "willy-nilly" aside, I took the time to follow through the trail of definitions so as to know exactly what a reference like "The 6LoWPAN adaptation format" actually means.  As RFC 4944 variously uses "IEEE802.15.4 network", "6LoWPAN"  and "LoWPAN, I thought it might be good to suggest a consistent naming scheme.
> > 
> > However, I'm willing to leave the doc the way it is; as I wrote, I don't mean to delay the publication process, just trying to help.
> > 
> > - Ralph
> > 
> > On Aug 10, 2011, at 2:50 PM 8/10/11, geoff wrote:
> > 
> >> I completely agree with Carsten.  HC1 is not applicable to 802.15.4
> >> networks in general but to 6lowpan networks - they are different.
> >> 
> >> I think we need to stop willy-nilly changes and get this document
> >> published.
> >> 
> >> 	geoff
> >> 
> >> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 20:25 +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> >>> On Aug 10, 2011, at 20:15, Ralph Droms wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> Following up on Pascal's observation, I looked through the entire doc for occurrences of "6lopwan".  In my opinion, all of those occurrences could be replaced with "IEEE802.15.4-based network"; in some cases s/the 6lowpan/an IEEE802.15.4-based network/   In either case, note the lower-case "network".
> >>> 
> >>> Hmm, I'm not so sure that actually improves the text.  (Consistency is the hob...)
> >>> (I'm not even sure about Pascal's observation, because the reason for the insufficiency of HC1 is not with IEEE802.15.4, but with the way we use it in 6LoWPANs.)
> >>> 
> >>> I actually think Megan's most recent version is perfect, and we should ship that.
> >>> 
> >>> Gruesse, Carsten
> >>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Not meaning to delay the publication process further, but I think we should take a second to consider consistency...
> >>>> 
> >>>> - Ralph
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Aug 9, 2011, at 1:04 PM 8/9/11, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> 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:[e-mail]]
> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 5:02 PM
> >>>>>> To: Carsten Bormann; Ralph Droms (rdroms); Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> >>>>>> Cc: 6lowpan; RFC Editor; [e-mail]
> >>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 6lowpan mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan