Re: [lp-wan] SCHC RFC-to-be title?
"Carles Gomez Montenegro" <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu> Thu, 06 February 2020 11:41 UTC
Return-Path: <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>
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 61B1912009C for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 03:41:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.195
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.195 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 9r6byhhc1cNQ for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 03:41:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dash.upc.es (dash.upc.es [147.83.2.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54865120019 for <lp-wan@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 03:41:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from entelserver.upc.edu (entelserver.upc.es [147.83.39.4]) by dash.upc.es (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id 016Bf09j045413; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 12:41:00 +0100
Received: from webmail.entel.upc.edu (webmail.entel.upc.edu [147.83.39.6]) by entelserver.upc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 657641D53C1; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 12:40:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: from 10.192.137.220 by webmail.entel.upc.edu with HTTP; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 12:41:00 +0100
Message-ID: <fa54bc1c042735485634ada508fd640b.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <CABONVQZJX_t3jf1DEJfCUGqCQhwWHXfyj1JMg3Mw=gj60B53QQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1862_1580982901_5E3BE275_1862_220_2_DA61A104.6FF3F%dominique.barthel@orange.com> <CABONVQZJX_t3jf1DEJfCUGqCQhwWHXfyj1JMg3Mw=gj60B53QQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 12:41:00 +0100
From: Carles Gomez Montenegro <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>
To: Laurent Toutain <laurent.toutain@imt-atlantique.fr>
Cc: BARTHEL Dominique IMT/OLPS <dominique.barthel@orange.com>, "lp-wan@ietf.org" <lp-wan@ietf.org>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21-1.fc14
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.100.3 at dash
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Delayed for 23:21:51 by milter-greylist-4.3.9 (dash.upc.es [147.83.2.50]); Thu, 06 Feb 2020 12:41:00 +0100 (CET)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lp-wan/Uq89QgFaesI2CyJc4yl1sEVseYY>
Subject: Re: [lp-wan] SCHC RFC-to-be 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, 06 Feb 2020 11:41:07 -0000
Hi, My vote is also for A.2 and B.4. Thanks, Carles > A.2 B.4 > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 10:55 AM <dominique.barthel@orange.com> wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> This was discussed yesterday at the interim meeting and I want to give >> everybody a chance to chime in. >> The SCHC draft is currently in AUTH48 stage, with the RFC Editor, and >> now >> is the time to do the last editorial changes. >> >> One thing we want to do right is the RFC title. It currently says >> "*Static >> Context Header Compression (SCHC) and fragmentation for LPWAN, >> application >> to UDP/IPv6*". >> We want to change it for a better title, one that reflects the most >> important contributions of this RFC. >> >> - I believe the UDP/IPv6 section is secondary, it's more of an >> example >> of application. Having UDP/IPv6 in the title distracts from the fact >> that >> the rest of the draft is a generic mechanism, IMHO. >> - We have a little tension between using SCHC as an acronym >> (expliciting Compression) and the use of expressions like "'SCHC >> Fragmentation" and "SCHC Compression". >> - Thoughts have been expressed that the applicability of the generic >> SCHC algorithm is not limited to LPWANs, therefore it should not >> appear in >> the title. The rest of the text could still say that "SCHC was >> originally >> developed with LPWANs in mind". >> - Thoughts have been expressed that "static context" is a >> distinguishing feature, and as such, it should stay in the title. >> >> Can I please get your votes about the following two points: >> >> A) "SCHC" >> A.1 remains an acronym meaning "Static Context Header Compression", and >> we >> live with the tension described above. >> A.2 becomes the acronym to mean "Static Context Header Compression and >> fragmentation", even though the F does not show in the acronym >> A.3 becomes SCHCF and means "Static Context Header Compression and >> Fragmentation", and we will later figure a pronunciation for it. >> A.4 becomes a proper noun, a name that is not spelled out. The text can >> still mention that the name originated as an acronym for "Static Context >> Header Compression". >> >> B) RFC title: >> B.1 "SCHC: generic framework for header compression and fragmentation >> using a static context" >> B.2 "SCHC: static context header compression and fragmentation for >> Low-Power Wide Area Networks (LPWANs)" >> B.3 ""Static Context Header Compression and fragmentation (SCHC)" >> B.4 ""Static Context Header Compression and fragmentation (SCHC) for >> Low-Power Wide Area Networks (LPWANs)" >> B.5 suggest your own! >> >> Your votes by the end of the week would be very much appreciated! >> Thanks >> >> Dominique & the co-authors gang >> >> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >> >> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations >> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez >> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages >> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme >> ou falsifie. Merci. >> >> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged >> information that may be protected by law; >> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and >> delete this message and its attachments. >> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have >> been modified, changed or falsified. >> Thank you. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lp-wan mailing list >> lp-wan@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan >> > _______________________________________________ > lp-wan mailing list > lp-wan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan >
- [lp-wan] SCHC RFC-to-be title? dominique.barthel
- Re: [lp-wan] SCHC RFC-to-be title? Laurent Toutain
- Re: [lp-wan] SCHC RFC-to-be title? Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [lp-wan] SCHC RFC-to-be title? Carles Gomez Montenegro
- Re: [lp-wan] SCHC RFC-to-be title? Arunprabhu Kandasamy
- Re: [lp-wan] SCHC RFC-to-be title? dominique.barthel
- Re: [lp-wan] SCHC RFC-to-be title? Ana Minaburo
- Re: [lp-wan] SCHC RFC-to-be title? Alexander Pelov
- Re: [lp-wan] SCHC RFC-to-be title? Prof. Diego Dujovne
- Re: [lp-wan] SCHC RFC-to-be title? dominique.barthel
- Re: [lp-wan] SCHC RFC-to-be title? Olivier Gimenez
- Re: [lp-wan] SCHC RFC-to-be title? Juan Carlos Zuniga
- Re: [lp-wan] SCHC RFC-to-be title? Julien CATALANO
- Re: [lp-wan] SCHC RFC-to-be title? Ivaylo Petrov
- Re: [lp-wan] SCHC RFC-to-be title? dominique.barthel
- Re: [lp-wan] SCHC RFC-to-be title? AUDEBERT Vincent