Re: [6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 08 July 2011 07:30 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.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 4E28121F87BB for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 00:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
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 qQGa8nVnsDNX for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 00:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.144]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA05921F86DE for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 00:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.2) with ESMTP id p687U3Gk022457 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 8 Jul 2011 09:30:03 +0200
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p687U3wh027406; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 09:30:03 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [132.166.133.178] (is010173.intra.cea.fr [132.166.133.178]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id p687U3wB007348; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 09:30:03 +0200
Message-ID: <4E16B1FB.3010606@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 09:30:03 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 6lowpan@ietf.org
References: <1BB75432-B4F7-4D30-BC0F-31369D11105C@tzi.org> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D04FAE351@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <4E15A537.2090602@gridmerge.com> <4E15C2CA.3050609@gmail.com> <4E162AED.8040502@gridmerge.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E162AED.8040502@gridmerge.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs
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, 08 Jul 2011 07:30:07 -0000

Le 07/07/2011 23:53, Robert Cragie a écrit :
> Alex,
>
> I don't think you're reading what I'm writing. As I said, WPAN was
> chosen by the IEEE for the 802.15 WG. The 802.15 WG is about
> wireless, hence the 'W'. You assume 'personal' means 'wearable',
> however the IEEE actually use 'body' (as in BAN, body area network)
> for this. I think 'personal' is simply meant to be the next down in
> scope from 'local', that's all (and 'body' the next down from
> 'personal').

Yes, metropolitan-local-personal-body is logic, as is
train-bus-car-bicycle-monocycle "CAN" which may use 802.15.4.  I think
802.15.4 is a good term, as well as maybe "short distance range GHz
frequency range".

> It really doesn't mean much at all. Let's face it, an 802.11
> metropolitan mesh network is hardly a LAN. 'Wireless' used to be the
> bakelite box on the mantelpiece.
>
> '6loan' may well have been better. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
> Maybe 'LOL' would have been good for Low-power and Lossy <LOL>. We
> could go on forever.

Lol.

> On a more serious note, I agree with Jonathan about being more
> precise for HC as that is specific. Of his three suggestions, my
> preference would be "Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE
> 802.15.4-based Networks".

I agree with Jonathan suggestions on HC draft titles because they use
the specific term 802.15.4.  I will write separately.

Alex

>
> Robert
>
> On 07/07/2011 3:29 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>> Le 07/07/2011 14:23, Robert Cragie a écrit :
>>> +1.
>>>
>>> I don't think we should get too hung up on WPAN. It's just a name
>>> chosen for 802.15 WG. It's subjective as to how appropriate it
>>> really is. To be precise, 802.15.4 is the low power, low data
>>> rate WPAN in 802.15 so loWPAN is a reasonable, pronounceable
>>> abbreviation which implies 802.15.4 in the context of 802.15 but
>>> could mean other similar types of network in other contexts.
>>
>> Hmm... except that "W" in WPAN makes little sense on PLC contexts
>> (RPL has "PLC" in text).
>>
>> "P" in PAN is risky too because ND may work on short-range yet
>> non-wearable networks.
>>
>> "loan" would be more generic - LOw-power Area Network.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>> On 29/06/2011 12:45 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>>>> Hi Carsten:
>>>>
>>>> Maybe the answer depends on the draft. HC depends on the
>>>> 802.15.4 for some of the compression procedure and it makes
>>>> sense that this appears in the title.
>>>>
>>>> ND does not have such a strong link to the MAC so there is no
>>>> point pinpointing 802.15.4 or any specific IEEE. Rather, ND
>>>> makes sense because of the NBMA nature of the network, and the
>>>> desire to save multicast operation, which is common to LLNs.
>>>> So I do not think we need to change ND.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, 6LoWPAN as a name as become a lot more than what the
>>>> acronym could initially stand for. I do not think the drafts
>>>> should use 6LoWPAN for what it expands to, but rather as the
>>>> name of the WG that defined all those drafts.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Pascal
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org
>>>>> [mailto:6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Carsten
>>>>> Bormann Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:20 PM To: 6lowpan
>>>>> WG Subject: [6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs
>>>>>
>>>>> While completing the RFC editor work for 6LoWPAN-HC, the
>>>>> issue of supplying correct and useful titles for our RFCs
>>>>> came up again. You may recall that we went through a little
>>>>> bit of discussion already for 6LoWPAN-ND, which has the same
>>>>> problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> The exposition of the problem takes a couple of paragraphs,
>>>>> so bear with me, please.
>>>>>
>>>>> Superficially, one part of the problem is that the marker
>>>>> that people are using to find our work, 6LoWPAN, was built
>>>>> out of the WPAN abbreviation invented by IEEE.
>>>>>
>>>>> One issue with that is that, strictly speaking, 6LoWPAN would
>>>>> require a double expansion in an RFC title as in
>>>>>
>>>>> 6LoWPAN (IPv6 over Low Power WPAN (Wireless Personal Area
>>>>> Networks))
>>>>>
>>>>> WPAN also is a bad short-term politically motivated term --
>>>>> it was needed in IEEE to get the 802.15.4 radio accepted
>>>>> under 802.15. WPAN ("Wireless Personal Area Networks") is
>>>>> highly misleading, as there is nothing at all "Personal
>>>>> Area" about 802.15.4 WPANs. The deciding characteristic is
>>>>> the low-power, limited-range design (which, as a
>>>>> consequence, also causes the additional characteristic of
>>>>> lossiness that ROLL has chosen for its "Low-Power/Lossy"
>>>>> moniker).
>>>>>
>>>>> Still, the misleading four letters WPAN are part of the now
>>>>> well-known "6LoWPAN" acronym, and we may need to use this
>>>>> acronym to make sure the document is perceived in the right
>>>>> scope.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the recent history of 6LoWPAN-HC being fixed up to address
>>>>> WGLC comments, there was a silent title change.
>>>>>
>>>>> HC-13 used the title: (September 27, 2010) Compression
>>>>> Format for IPv6 Datagrams in 6LoWPAN Networks HC-14 changed
>>>>> this to: (February 14, 2011) Compression Format for IPv6
>>>>> Datagrams in Low Power and Lossy Networks (6LoWPAN)
>>>>>
>>>>> This borrows ROLL's term "Low-Power and Lossy Networks",
>>>>> which may seem natural to the authors, who have done a lot
>>>>> of work in ROLL. Note that the ROLL WG has a wider scope
>>>>> than the 6LoWPAN WG (it is at layer three, connecting
>>>>> different link layer technologies), so it may be useful to
>>>>> retain a distinction between 6LoWPANs and LLNs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Specifically, 6LoWPAN-HC as defined has a lot of
>>>>> dependencies on RFC 4944 and IEEE 802.15.4, so using it as-is
>>>>> in generic "LLNs" would be inappropriate. (It sure can be
>>>>> adapted for many non-6LoWPAN LLNs, but that would be a
>>>>> separate draft.)
>>>>>
>>>>> 6LoWPAN-ND has a similar problem. Indeed, some of the
>>>>> concepts of 6LoWPAN-ND may be applicable to a lot of
>>>>> networks that benefit from relying less on multicast. In an
>>>>> attempt to widen the scope, there was a title change when we
>>>>> rebooted the ND work to simplify it:
>>>>>
>>>>> ND-08: (February 1, 2010) 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery ND-09:
>>>>> (April 27, 2010) Neighbor Discovery Optimization for
>>>>> Low-power and Lossy Networks
>>>>>
>>>>> However, the document as it passed WGLC still is focused on
>>>>> 6LoWPANs (e.g., it contains specific support for 6COs).
>>>>>
>>>>> For both HC and ND, I don't think we properly discussed the
>>>>> attempted title changes in the WG.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what are the specific issues to be decided? I see at
>>>>> least:
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Should we drop the 6LoWPAN marker from our documents?
>>>>> (Note that RFC 4944 doesn't have it, but in the 4 years
>>>>> since, the term has gained some recognition.) Should there
>>>>> be another common marker? -- E.g., should we change over the
>>>>> whole documents (HC, ND) to LLN? -- Should we just refer to
>>>>> IEEE 802.15.4 in the title (no 6LoWPAN)? HC = Compression
>>>>> Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4
>>>> Networks
>>>>> ND = Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IEEE 802.15.4
>>>>> Networks -- Or should we stick with 6LoWPAN in both title
>>>>> and body? -- If the latter, what is an appropriate expansion
>>>>> of 6LoWPAN? Can we get rid of the "Personal" in the
>>>>> expansion? -- IPv6 over Low power Wireless Personal Area
>>>>> Networks [RFC4944] -- IPv6-based Low power Wireless Personal
>>>>> Area Networks [RFC4944] -- IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area
>>>>> Networks -- IPv6-based Low-power WPANs -- Other ideas? --
>>>>> Whatever we decide about the above: What is the relationship
>>>>> between the well-known term 6LoWPAN and ROLL LLNs?
>>>>>
>>>>> Since 6LoWPAN-HC is waiting in the RFC editor queue, blocked
>>>>> for just this title issue, I'd like to resolve these
>>>>> questions quickly. Please provide your reasoned opinion to
>>>>> this mailing list by July 1.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gruesse, Carsten
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________ 6lowpan
>>>>> mailing list 6lowpan@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
>>>> _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing
>>>> list 6lowpan@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing
>>> list 6lowpan@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
>>
>> _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing
>> list 6lowpan@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list
>  6lowpan@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan