IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Tue, 02 July 2013 08:59 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: 6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3696521F9E43 for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 01:59:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9SsJ7ysDNniq for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 01:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 097B121F96F4 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 01:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=14090; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1372755564; x=1373965164; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=QMzZZ/1gnBhXmbtfr/JbNeSWe6r9Bj3qmk3ZVy8IUUk=; b=er1i90JlgAWEWwlEJg19KCqGl7kiUBCVEyPM2uuPJ5bdJ99nc8Wifk3d ARS2qi6lXyjJw4MEDc56iQgckIp25YvZJLxw+qnoqf3xKOFuJVfhSsV73 Feq4aP5RVJVbweLMLRh/B41od0AZhfNpOX83cttV2teGpoFVoBOhAzJJ2 M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiMFAM6V0lGtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABagkVEMkm/TXsWdIIjAQEBBC1cAgEIEQEDAQELHQcyFAMGCAEBBBMIiAe7V48pNwGDBGcDhUCDK6AjgxGCKA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.87,980,1363132800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="229814860"
Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Jul 2013 08:59:23 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com [173.36.12.80]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r628xNbN032151 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 08:59:23 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.80]) by xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com ([173.36.12.80]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 03:59:22 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: "6tsch@ietf.org" <6tsch@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: 6TUS vs. 6TSCH
Thread-Index: Ac5xuVO/D0+QrPeXTjiQpPp8FBedUQFR+lkQ
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 08:59:22 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 08:59:00 +0000
Message-ID: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD841339CBA@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
References: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD841331DAA@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD841331DAA@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.49.80.43]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD841339CBAxmbrcdx01ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [6tsch] 6TUS vs. 6TSCH
X-BeenThere: 6tsch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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" <6tsch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tsch>, <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tsch>
List-Post: <mailto:6tsch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch>, <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 08:59:40 -0000

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]
Sent: mardi 25 juin 2013 11:08
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu<mailto:xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu>; yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp<mailto:yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp>
Cc: watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu<mailto: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 :)

Maria Rita

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email