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

[geoff <[e-mail]>]

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