Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-15.txt>
geoff <geoff@proto6.com> Wed, 10 August 2011 19:36 UTC
Return-Path: <geoff@proto6.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 46BDA21F8B24 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:36:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 gzv9tqKOM2uz for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:36:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server2.coslabs.com (server2.coslabs.com [64.111.18.234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E20421F86BD for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:36:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grab.coslabs.com (mail.coslabs.com [199.233.92.34]) by server2.coslabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44146184D3; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:36:36 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from [199.233.92.6] (unknown [199.233.92.6]) by grab.coslabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B498B1600AE; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:36:28 -0600 (MDT)
From: geoff <geoff@proto6.com>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <8FD192A3-8CBA-40A5-A93C-01E4BA42E10D@cisco.com>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:36:32 -0600
Message-ID: <1313004992.15378.62.camel@d430>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Megan Ferguson <mferguson@amsl.com>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, 6lowpan 6lowpan <6lowpan@ietf.org>, 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.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: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:36:02 -0000
Ralph, sorry for my frustration coming through in my message and it was not directed at you. I agree that consistency is good, but 6lowpan is an industry term and subset of 15.4 networks and is specific and is what the HC drafts are targeted at. I think that draft should stay as is and let's please move this forward. geoff On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 15:02 -0400, 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] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-ietf… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-… Timothy J. Salo
- Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282<draft-i… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-… Carsten Bormann
- [6lowpan] Usage of "6LoWPAN" in vernacular Carsten Bormann
- Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-… geoff
- Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-… Ralph Droms
- Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-… geoff
- Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-… geoff
- Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-… Robert Cragie
- Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282<draft-i… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-… Carsten Bormann