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

Timothy:

'-based' was added because 802.15.4 MAC is now used on multiple media
including PLC, and HC applies fine to those.
In order to include those, we proposed to add frame, or based. Seems
that the latter made consensus.

Cheers,

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Timothy J. Salo
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 9:10 PM
> Cc: 6lowpan; 6lowpan-chairs@tools.ietf.org; 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC
6282<draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-
> 15.txt>
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I think that the name should speak to a large audience (not just the
> working group or even just the IETF) and should make sense for many
> years.
> 
> The "-based" part of the name seems something between subtle and
> extraneous.  If you want to emphasize that this RFC doesn't require
> or use a full implementation of IEEE 802.15.4, this should be
> highlighted in the text, not in 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).
> 
> "6lowpan", I believe, fails the test of speaking to a broader audience
> and having longevity.  Today, few people know what 6lowpan means, and
> in the future it will be merely an interesting (or not-so-interesting)
> historical footnote.  Using "6lowpan" feels sort of like using a
> development code name for a marketing name.
> 
> > Megan has indicated that 6LoWPAN would be expanded as in RFC 4919:
> >
> >      IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
> 
> I think that the term "personal area networks" is, well, archaic.
> That is not how IEEE 802.15.4 is being used and not how these
> specifications are being used.  Rather, I think we all hope that
> this technology will be used for much more than personal area
> networks.
> 
> Carsten made essentially this argument in his original e-mail.
> 
> This reasoning suggests that "6lowpan" doesn't add any value to the
> title, since it embeds an acronym that we don't really believe.
> 
> RFC 4944, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks",
> contains neither "based", "6lowpan", nor "personal area networks" in
> its title.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Again, I think that "6lowpan" is, or soon will be, historical trivia.
> It's a title that, while we as a working group might have some
affection
> for, we don't really believe it.
> 
> -tjs
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> 6lowpan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan