IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6tisch] terminology - new version on bitbucket - open issues

"Wang, Chonggang" <Chonggang.Wang@InterDigital.com> Wed, 04 February 2015 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <Chonggang.Wang@interdigital.com>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEDE71A1AC9 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 07:19:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.244
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.244 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J40UcAErX0F2 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 07:19:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-in1.interdigital.com (smtp-in1.interdigital.com [64.208.228.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FFBC1A046D for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 07:19:55 -0800 (PST)
X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1423063193-06daaa10a1247a0001-Y66muY
Received: from NALENITE.InterDigital.com (nalenite.interdigital.com [10.2.64.253]) by smtp-in1.interdigital.com with ESMTP id GD7IoZ9ajPW0Cfgq (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 10:19:53 -0500 (EST)
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: Chonggang.Wang@InterDigital.com
Received: from NABESITE.InterDigital.com ([fe80::4d8a:a889:67c2:f009]) by NALENITE.InterDigital.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 10:19:52 -0500
From: "Wang, Chonggang" <Chonggang.Wang@InterDigital.com>
To: "'Pascal Thubert (pthubert)'" <pthubert@cisco.com>, 'Thomas Watteyne' <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu>, 'Maria Rita PALATTELLA' <maria-rita.palattella@uni.lu>
Thread-Topic: terminology - new version on bitbucket - open issues
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: RE: terminology - new version on bitbucket - open issues
Thread-Index: AdBAbqIDFuQQM7w0RoeZd6Dr7no44QALCh4AAAH8bQAABURL0A==
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 15:19:51 +0000
Message-ID: <988A85FFFC503944A7588C70D4A6F1170A043901@NABESITE.InterDigital.com>
References: <F085911F642A6847987ADA23E611780D1D0E43EA@hoshi.uni.lux> <CADJ9OA-=G_AjvrWjPw9o9t25y8uTGJhrwD5iyk2OPgTF9cJ=CQ@mail.gmail.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD848B5ADED@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD848B5ADED@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.1.4.235]
x-exclaimer-md-config: bb79a19d-f711-475c-a0f9-4d93b71c94dd
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_988A85FFFC503944A7588C70D4A6F1170A043901NABESITEInterDi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Barracuda-Connect: nalenite.interdigital.com[10.2.64.253]
X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1423063193
X-Barracuda-Encrypted: AES128-SHA
X-Barracuda-URL: https://10.1.245.3:443/cgi-mod/mark.cgi
X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at interdigital.com
X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1
X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00
X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE
X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.14930 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.00 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/xz8eV3tjfUU01V-bf6EX0xthjDs>
Cc: "'6tisch@ietf.org'" <6tisch@ietf.org>, "'Rene Struik (rstruik.ext@gmail.com)'" <rstruik.ext@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] terminology - new version on bitbucket - open issues
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <6tisch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tisch/>
List-Post: <mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 15:19:57 -0000

Hi Maria Rita,

Thanks for the updates. I am fine with your changes. I also like Pascal’s suggestion below – we can remove that acronym to avoid confusion.

I do not have further comments.

Thanks,
Chonggang

From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) [mailto:pthubert@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 7:48 AM
To: Thomas Watteyne; Maria Rita PALATTELLA
Cc: Rene Struik (rstruik.ext@gmail.com); Wang, Chonggang; 6tisch@ietf.org
Subject: RE: terminology - new version on bitbucket - open issues

Me too. Why don’t we use “payload” for payload? I do not see the need for an acronym!

Cheers,

Pascal

From: twatteyne@gmail.com<mailto:twatteyne@gmail.com> [mailto:twatteyne@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Thomas Watteyne
Sent: mercredi 4 février 2015 12:51
To: Maria Rita PALATTELLA
Cc: Rene Struik (rstruik.ext@gmail.com<mailto:rstruik.ext@gmail.com>); Wang, Chonggang (Chonggang.Wang@interdigital.com<mailto:Chonggang.Wang@interdigital.com>); Pascal Thubert (pthubert); 6tisch@ietf.org<mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: terminology - new version on bitbucket - open issues

Maria Rita,

Wonderful! I second your statement to use PDU as defined in RFC994.

Thomas

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Maria Rita PALATTELLA <maria-rita.palattella@uni.lu<mailto:maria-rita.palattella@uni.lu>> wrote:
Dear all,

based on the comments I kindly received from Rene and Chonggang, I have updated the terminology draft. The new version is available on Bitbucket:
https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-ietf-6tisch-terminology/src/master/

Mainly I have fixed several definitions, trying to be more precise and clearer, and I have also deleted some terms (security-related).
There is still one issue related to the PDU acronym used for the 6top Data Convey Model . PDU is well known to be Protocol Data Unit (RFC994). But in the 6top Data Convey Model, it is used for Payload Data Unit. I would ask the 6top team to have a look, and see how we could replace this acronym. Thanks!
@Rene/Chonggang, ALL : please, review the new version of the draft and let me know if you would like still something to be changed.
Thank you!
Best regards,
Maria Rita

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email