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

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

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
>> 
>> 
>