Re: [6tsch] 6TUS vs. 6TSCH

If we decide to change the name of 6tus, I would argue that there is no
need to keep the word "sixtus" in the acronym, since we are replacing it.

Thomas

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Raghuram Sudhaakar (rsudhaak) <
rsudhaak@cisco.com> wrote:

>  I was wondering the same as Maria Rita.
>
>  I suggest retaining 6TSCH (pronounced as Sixtus).
>
>  Or
>
>  6TS – 6 TSCH Scheduling. IMO layer is obvious and 3 syllables make
> remembering and saying it a lot easier. It avoids the ambiguity about
> management.
>
>  -raghuram
>
>   From: Maria Rita PALATTELLA <maria-rita.palattella@uni.lu>
> Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2013 10:22 PM
> To: Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <
> pthubert@cisco.com>
> Cc: "6tsch@ietf.org" <6tsch@ietf.org>, "xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu" <
> xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu>
>
> Subject: Re: [6tsch] 6TUS vs. 6TSCH
>
>   I do agree with Qin that 6tus does more than track operation...
> therefore, I would go for
> --Sixtus TSCH Operation Layer --
>
> but I have a minor concern. Shouldn't we remove TSCH? because Sixtus ( =
> 6TSCH) already includes it. What do you think about?
>
> Maria Rita
> ------------------------------
> *From:* 6tsch-bounces@ietf.org [6tsch-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Qin
> Wang [qinwang@berkeley.edu]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 02, 2013 5:03 PM
> *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> *Cc:* 6tsch@ietf.org; xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [6tsch] 6TUS vs. 6TSCH
>
>   6TOP is good, but I prefer that it stands for  Sixtus TSCH Operation
> Layer, because "Sixtus Track Operation Layer" is a little bit narrower
> than the function of this sub-layer.
>
>  Qin
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
> pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>>  Hello Xavi:****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I love the TOp. ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Management, OTOH, is both a bit misleading (people expect management
>> console, CNM type of stuff)  and a bit incomplete (missing the forwarding
>> layer). ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Cheers,****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Pascal****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Xavier Vilajosana Guillen [mailto:xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu]
>> *Sent:* mardi 2 juillet 2013 15:36
>> *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>> *Cc:* 6tsch@ietf.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [6tsch] 6TUS vs. 6TSCH****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> what about
>>
>> 6TMAN (Sixtus TSCH Management layer)
>> 6TOP   (Sixtus Track Operation Layer or Sixtus TSCH Operation Layer)
>> MTSCH (Management TSCH sub layer)
>> 6SUB    (Sixtus SubLayer)
>>
>> just ideas!
>> X****
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:59 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
>> pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:****
>>
>> Dear all:****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> The funniest thing I got this far is 6TSCHNTSSL, pronounced as “60
>> schnitzel” (for 6TSCH TimeSlotted Sub-Layer).****
>>
>> But seriously we need to fix this. I was thinking that the key words I’d
>> like to see there are:****
>>
>> -Cell (allocation and dispatching)****
>>
>> -Track (switching sublayer)****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> So maybe 6CATS? ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Pascal****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> *From:*6tsch-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6tsch-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf
>> Of *Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>> *Sent:* mardi 25 juin 2013 17:35
>> *To:* 6tsch@ietf.org
>> *Subject:* [6tsch] 6TUS vs. 6TSCH****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Hello Maria-Rita:****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> I think we can easily beat a world record of the most ugly name. For
>> instance try pronouncing this: 6TSCHTSSL  (for TimeSlotted Sub-Layer).***
>> *
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> We need advice from the list:****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> 1) what do you think of the definition below for 6TSCH (I’m perfectly
>> happy with ità)****
>>
>> 2) Should we rename 6TUS to avoid confusion with 6TSCH that pronounces
>> sixtus already? If so, proposal?****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Cheers,****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Pascal****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> *From:* Maria Rita PALATTELLA [mailto:maria-rita.palattella@uni.lu<maria-rita.palattella@uni.lu>]
>>
>> *Sent:* mardi 25 juin 2013 11:08
>> *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert); xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu;
>> yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp
>> *Cc:* watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu
>> *Subject:* RE: [6tsch] draft-ohba-6tsch-security-00****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Hello Pascal,****
>>
>> I do agree that 6TSCH is not well defined in the terminology draft. Sorry
>> for that.  For sure, we need to spell out the acronym. According to what
>> you are suggesting, and what we had before, we may update it as follows:*
>> ***
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> *6TSCH: IPv6 over Time Slotted Channel Hopping. It defines a set of IETF
>> sublayers and protocols (for setting up a schedule with a centralized or
>> distributed approach, managing the resource allocation, etc.), as well as
>> the architecture to bind them together, for use in IPv6  TSCH based
>> networks.*****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> I also agree on the confusion that comes from having 6TSCH = SIXTUS and
>> 6TUS adaptation layer. But I am worried it is a bit late for
>> changing…somehow people got already familiar with this terms…unless, we
>> agree to have only 6TSCH, and call 6TUS 6TSCH adaptation layer. What do you
>> think? Maybe it is even worst J****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Maria Rita****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 6tsch mailing list
>> 6tsch@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 6tsch mailing list
>> 6tsch@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6tsch mailing list
> 6tsch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch
>
>