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

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Thu, 11 August 2011 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2713321F8B30 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.181
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.181 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.418, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6VAkDUJsSY4S for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:07:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F6D21F8ACE for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=pthubert@cisco.com; l=6849; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1313078880; x=1314288480; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=pSoDsAHcI9zAOkpTWBOUjx1kGq/BsTMitd8M0j7PSCw=; b=W2WqCJLeEfCYSXOKg6RWditByoFYbWAXHmrCDFdjN5+SwjUlXzD9s0Ld AJyJjYt1HBJpw0fqnckVr82jWcFQ/TXfdkmYvHoGcGpmD5I2+yESApOLr DYuGpUFBGNZiupeeWmDIwKzpUJ+dAKY8aK/tSv01GOZz/+d1QdGKxPsIb Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: As8AAMz9Q06Q/khL/2dsb2JhbABBmAePSXeBQAEBAQEDAQEBDwEdCjQLDAQCAQgOAwQBAQEKBhcBBgEmHwkIAQEEARIIGodRngUBnnGFaF8EmCKLXQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,357,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="110286763"
Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Aug 2011 16:07:56 +0000
Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7BG7uiD032259; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:07:56 GMT
Received: from xmb-ams-107.cisco.com ([144.254.74.82]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:07:56 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:07:43 +0200
Message-ID: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05465C41@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <A5685195-0190-49F6-87FF-B53CD11F1777@gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282<draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-15.txt>
Thread-Index: AcxXktMLXD+gaJFXTf+XuKB+5pmU/wArYfkg
References: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05228480@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com><DE69914A-2813-4044-AEA7-A716FE2157CE@tzi.org><56748029-05E7-4B09-8C50-C9EADD5629A0@tzi.org><430C1B59-E048-4CC7-9E75-EF4E54D1104F@amsl.com><6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3C92@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com><EC44989C-2AEB-4D9E-975A-2950E88D86D8@cisco.com><F5FB5007-BDDB-4E55-8249-CCE07FF201FF@tzi.org><1313002234.15378.54.camel@d430><8FD192A3-8CBA-40A5-A93C-01E4BA42E10D@cisco.com> <A5685195-0190-49F6-87FF-B53CD11F1777@gmail.com>
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: "Ralph Droms" <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>, "Megan Ferguson" <mferguson@amsl.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Aug 2011 16:07:56.0377 (UTC) FILETIME=[D5211C90:01CC5840]
Cc: 6lowpan 6lowpan <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" <rdroms@cisco.com>, geoff Mulligan <geoff@proto6.com>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282<draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-15.txt>
X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowpan>
List-Post: <mailto:6lowpan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:07:27 -0000

Hi Megan;

Same here.

I'm not longing for any perfection. I trust an engineer that needs to
implement this spec can certainly do it with the current text and I'm
happy with it as I was before that episode.

As far as I am concerned we are ready to publish. Thanks a huge bunch
for your efforts and sorry for all those discussions.

Cheers,

Pascal


> -----Original Message-----
> From: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Ralph Droms
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:22 PM
> To: Megan Ferguson
> Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); RFC Editor; geoff Mulligan; Carsten Bormann;
> 6lowpan 6lowpan; 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC
6282<draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-
> 15.txt>
> 
> 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:mferguson@amsl.com]
> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 5:02 PM
> >>>>>> To: Carsten Bormann; Ralph Droms (rdroms); Pascal Thubert
> (pthubert)
> >>>>>> Cc: 6lowpan; RFC Editor; 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org
> >>>>>> 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
> >>> 6lowpan@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> 6lowpan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan