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
- [6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: [6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs Samita Chakrabarti
- Re: [6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs Robert Cragie
- Re: [6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs Jonathan Hui
- Re: [6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs Robert Cragie
- Re: [6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs Geoff Mulligan
- Re: [6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs Shoichi Sakane
- Re: [6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs Zach Shelby