[6tsch] 6TUS vs. 6TSCH

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Tue, 25 June 2013 15:34 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 DA90311E80AD for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 08:34:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.474
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124, 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 Z7aOE58RCnHE for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 08:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92B5921F9F6B for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 08:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10447; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1372174484; x=1373384084; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=7ylCRj7L+CMzAvJKkaxzl8sN0JnS2VA6scctCNLqiN0=; b=V3pKC2WdH3yoNgISaEjQjBbsir5/Qi4H5je52VFSnnw4pLo8QZUGKXel itNAuEQPqPu5ZIzd1WiK9Apno3sURCJ72rYTCISfhvogpbbmqf6R8Zb4e DnTsernmA0E0F9rJrkVFnZ9cvisr/+7N7YmCwwZQjabMANuITLpN3eI/1 U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AoUFAEC4yVGtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABagkVEMUm/OYEDFnSCIwEBAQQtXgEZAQMBAQsdORQDBgkBBBMIiAabD6BMjxQ3gwNhA4U+gyugHoMQgig
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.87,938,1363132800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="227231878"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Jun 2013 15:34:43 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com [173.36.12.81]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5PFYhtR001422 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:34:43 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.80]) by xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com ([173.36.12.81]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:34:43 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: "6tsch@ietf.org" <6tsch@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: 6TUS vs. 6TSCH
Thread-Index: Ac5xuVO/D0+QrPeXTjiQpPp8FBedUQ==
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:34:42 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:34:00 +0000
Message-ID: <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: [10.61.160.6]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD841331DAAxmbrcdx01ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [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, 25 Jun 2013 15:34:58 -0000

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; 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 :)

Maria Rita