IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lp-wan] Draft SCHC for CoAP -Title

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 10 June 2021 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE7713A451E for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 09:07:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_FAIL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H-LRkolzxJDN for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 09:07:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DADB3A450D for <lp-wan@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 09:07:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dcc89.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.204.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4G18530rG4z2xHy; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 18:07:35 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <DB7PR08MB31790D2E6DC6D8F807A2244389359@DB7PR08MB3179.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 18:07:34 +0200
Cc: "dominique.barthel@orange.com" <dominique.barthel@orange.com>, Laurent Toutain <laurent.toutain@imt-atlantique.fr>, Pascal Thubert <pthubert@cisco.com>, "lp-wan@ietf.org" <lp-wan@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 645034054.176075-60c126a507d622396134868238408614
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3250E4EB-715E-4B25-8142-99B685861E25@tzi.org>
References: <CAAbr+nQJzZ242B9EhzqgaW40VMA=iXhpn743wC1PdQE2kDzZ=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CO1PR11MB4881BC3131F02FB61ECCFB16D83C9@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CABONVQYk4TH66r4OhvxPjQit2FPLBFZ-9vf_AEUBEL1oOZV+9w@mail.gmail.com> <CO1PR11MB488127CAF34ED3BF1F24B9DFD8359@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CABONVQYAwrgXwht4TkCpdD6f2wb+e0PiQVuMTYPCqbKn-EPU4A@mail.gmail.com> <9075_1623333886_60C21BFE_9075_26_1_8F1D83ADCC1AC94186A867BEE9B7D9137FD25015@OPEXCAUBM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <DB7PR08MB31790D2E6DC6D8F807A2244389359@DB7PR08MB3179.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
To: Juan Carlos Zuniga <juancarlos.zuniga@sigfox.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lp-wan/JsHwAEerMs1n3USTI2Y-qzxSzHY>
Subject: Re: [lp-wan] Draft SCHC for CoAP -Title
X-BeenThere: lp-wan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Low-Power Wide Area Networking \(LP-WAN\), also known as LPWA or Low-Rate WAN \(LR-WAN\)" <lp-wan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lp-wan>, <mailto:lp-wan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lp-wan/>
List-Post: <mailto:lp-wan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lp-wan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan>, <mailto:lp-wan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 16:07:44 -0000

On 2021-06-10, at 18:00, Juan Carlos Zuniga <juancarlos.zuniga@sigfox.com> wrote:
> 
> Full:                                   SCHC compression for CoAP
> Abbreviated:                   SCHC for CoAP

The RFC editor will insist on expanding abbreviations(*) in RFC titles.
(Sometimes you can get a compromise, as in 
RFC8930 On Forwarding 6LoWPAN Fragments over a Multi-Hop IPv6 Network.
That title doesn’t work if you expand 6LoWPAN.
But normally you have to.)

Note that the official expansion [1] of SCHC is

SCHC       - Static Context Header Compression (SCHC)

And the of CoAP is

CoAP       - Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) 

So you are already done:

SCHC for CoAP
➔
Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) for the
Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) 

Forget frameworks and fragmentation, irrelevant here.

(And the abbreviated title is exactly right.)

Grüße, Carsten


(*) Unless you are starred in [1]

[1]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email