IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lln-futures] What is LLN?

Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name> Tue, 25 September 2012 22:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ulrich@herberg.name>
X-Original-To: lln-futures@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lln-futures@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F2C521F87E7 for <lln-futures@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:06:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.027
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.027 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.950, BAYES_00=-2.599, FB_CIALIS_LEO3=3.899, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OeTxuyP2czaT for <lln-futures@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:06:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-f44.google.com (mail-oa0-f44.google.com [209.85.219.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF94221F8698 for <lln-futures@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by oagn5 with SMTP id n5so7575417oag.31 for <lln-futures@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=RNcC/f0hkjLNQ7hF9zenzu0jtmvFV5LoDM3NIzKURLk=; b=rTx48EJCrSZjk2QSeW++3kDyMSLU+et4Gi00cOxUwdQcHpDwVSbhcEmKSn+/SNssr8 Zgtqf63ZDjjRnP+WkYekbCkkA18cLq2y5+d8xtk/XXeZikkEJEKWaopQC5dpS7fHbOl5 H5v/YdTdiW0N6Lhc8tM3lfKUFz/A2Br5yUCK0=
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=RNcC/f0hkjLNQ7hF9zenzu0jtmvFV5LoDM3NIzKURLk=; b=dTGTcXmGucqETnXEVWZsmCVRJP6CiItZDVdyEozd0ZB55UpbezsHIOYYJ9oREPoAZa +6689zqCWRQkiYe14TuzpVLy+Kj98DBYiuTW4sRTQvKMPdWROuauBGoxN9TnZnzbEvKI p/CozIw0XZpvcTvKKoGTdjAWRbEpsLu4u1t7brAnVLehrLqCvjWR4M3K7zxmOedSLDaH 1XEPZpB+LQ7358mpGQiiUKNDh6FktnASm6U24jjt7AddMWJqiHbs4aZCvNtAwKzXFr8G m6GkBVF9qHx0IVpIuPqXHi5NJyIRm9BNoITyHYvbz5FSkgEfuTZfcPCODeGwlNXTySxd i2xg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.31.102 with SMTP id z6mr13379821oeh.42.1348610803260; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.73.165 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <042c01cd9b58$8ac27700$a0476500$@olddog.co.uk>
References: <042c01cd9b58$8ac27700$a0476500$@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:06:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CAK=bVC-mSVj+A+k07Odz-w1_coOTWi_2a7oFsG7hH3Chy7QUDg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb201b6de5b4104ca8deb88
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk5vXpn4nsM7ubwfZY2fIsg6wshsNeDfQbDDKSOJekK8/nPwpCZdkxsvkws5xM3NwCATXPk
Cc: lln-futures@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lln-futures] What is LLN?
X-BeenThere: lln-futures@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <lln-futures.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lln-futures>, <mailto:lln-futures-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lln-futures>
List-Post: <mailto:lln-futures@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lln-futures-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lln-futures>, <mailto:lln-futures-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 22:06:51 -0000

Hi,

I agree with Adrian that we should not use the same acronym for different
terms (but maybe it was just a glitch in the BOF request?).

I don't think that low-power should be excluded.

Best
Ulrich

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> Bit of a fundamental question to be asking at this stage?
>
> ROLL defines LLNs as "Low power and lossy networks"
> The BOF request defines "Lossy Link Networks"
>
> Clearly lossy link networks form a subset of low power and lossy networks.
> But
> is the intention to exclude low power considerations?
>
> It would really help to not define the same acronym with two different but
> very
> close meanings (notwithstanding WAD [RFC5513]).
>
> Could you clarify and simplify?
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lln-futures mailing list
> Lln-futures@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lln-futures
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email