Re: [6tsch] 6TUS vs. 6TSCH
Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu> Tue, 02 July 2013 15:03 UTC
Return-Path: <qinwang@berkeley.edu>
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 C603C21F9F57 for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 08:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 KNX6FeZMMJo7 for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 08:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-f179.google.com (mail-ie0-f179.google.com [209.85.223.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 158F821F9F55 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 08:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f179.google.com with SMTP id c10so11469853ieb.24 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Jul 2013 08:03:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=eRM4WQnSE9t2rFFykoAkARTrnBdeDfnVJASpKkAFzPs=; b=hAY5Kk6pbGZtVdJ81+Dtk9rb80WcYAI21NNncMYTSnx0/N5mli39Hno/FbWXJKSVbX JnqOJwrI39rkA1DqAvedt6V7jo//ay0vSFExXAQRQQuQaHY4BXyjEZPMfQ5VZwe2xTvp +EQmmcJzt/xirXyyVjCLPgJ1t3VhdEGZxFAF4zh5bysXA6w3n8xloSoNz32fTav7Mi2C IAmkRBEa80BrOTy9EFeBw0+IBJLybb55Ll7kIArcl2RhmCGuLPK1cVn9ks8TrX17k9OG rr1fa8NTVUr+qE6HQc7kNkL4bB2VvgVkaRuKjKh7GsMZ4dzqkKUSED2PDIaKrM3Zrzmx Tjug==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.1.37 with SMTP id 5mr21354842igj.29.1372777422449; Tue, 02 Jul 2013 08:03:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.240.20 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 08:03:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD84133AB33@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
References: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD841331DAA@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD841339CBA@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <CALEMV4aFMQFn3HmR8rj1jLpniZwxP0ZbAy75Syc-qtev3Lc2Ow@mail.gmail.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD84133AB33@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 23:03:42 +0800
Message-ID: <CAAzoce4Z0xtJ-8GnUPTedUSEWWjDq9SF43EcS2mje+nSypPymw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8f839e939ef97304e088a673"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmfsNf63Aj8dmjTPHxaMux2q2zoNXWaDQNvBpdgkn3SZx/BpV+epnpQtgeBoD/mII27KLe6
Cc: "6tsch@ietf.org" <6tsch@ietf.org>, "xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu" <xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu>
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 15:03:50 -0000
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] 6TUS vs. 6TSCH Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6tsch] 6TUS vs. 6TSCH Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] 6TUS vs. 6TSCH Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6tsch] 6TUS vs. 6TSCH Xavier Vilajosana Guillen
- Re: [6tsch] 6TUS vs. 6TSCH Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6tsch] 6TUS vs. 6TSCH Maria Rita PALATTELLA
- Re: [6tsch] 6TUS vs. 6TSCH Raghuram Sudhaakar (rsudhaak)
- Re: [6tsch] 6TUS vs. 6TSCH Thomas Watteyne