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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 22 July 2011 18:22 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 D843821F8A91 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PAFUhcqogCep for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1178621F8A58 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6MIMQNI001604; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 20:22:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.103] (p5B3E6A6D.dip.t-dialin.net [91.62.106.109]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DA9C1CE; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 20:22:26 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05228480@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 20:22:25 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DE69914A-2813-4044-AEA7-A716FE2157CE@tzi.org>
References: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05228480@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:26:07 -0700
Cc: "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" <rdroms@cisco.com>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, 6lowpan-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Shoichi Sakane <sakane@tanu.org>, 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: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 18:22:43 -0000

On Jul 22, 2011, at 19:59, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:

> It seems that "IEEE 802.15.4-based Networks" made the consensus.

Sorry, Pascal, not so fast.

It is a bit hard to diagnose a consensus here, except that
the clear WG consensus seems to be that nobody cares much :-)

It is indeed pretty clear from the extended WG discussion that

	Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-based Networks

or

	Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-based Networks

is the important part of the title.

We don't seem to have full consensus on whether 6LoWPAN should be part of the title.
Jonathan would like to keep it out, others have indicated that they think it should be part of the title (as it was during WGLC and IETF last call).

Megan has indicated that 6LoWPAN would be expanded as in RFC 4919:

    IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):

I think the best of both worlds would be

	Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-based Networks (6LoWPANs)

but I'd need input from the RFC editor whether that can be done without falling into the expansion trap.

Gruesse, Carsten