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
> > 
> > 
>