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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 10 August 2011 18:25 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 2F4D921F8ACA for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -107.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 QdQ7uxzFtNgd for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:25:11 -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 462D121F8AB8 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:25:10 -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 p7AIPRwU023504; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 20:25:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from eduroam-0711.wlan.uni-bremen.de (eduroam-0711.wlan.uni-bremen.de [134.102.18.199]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4617247E; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 20:25:27 +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: <EC44989C-2AEB-4D9E-975A-2950E88D86D8@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 20:25:26 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F5FB5007-BDDB-4E55-8249-CCE07FF201FF@tzi.org>
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>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: Megan Ferguson <mferguson@amsl.com>, 6lowpan <6lowpan@ietf.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: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:25:12 -0000

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
>>>> 
>>