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
>