Re: [lp-wan] SCHC RFC-to-be title?

Ana Minaburo <ana@minaburo.com> Thu, 06 February 2020 13:18 UTC

Return-Path: <anaminaburo@gmail.com>
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 71D6912013D for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 05:18:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 zIIsE3RrBf2N for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 05:18:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-f50.google.com (mail-ua1-f50.google.com [209.85.222.50]) (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 9A1C912006B for <lp-wan@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 05:18:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-f50.google.com with SMTP id g13so2224297uab.7 for <lp-wan@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Feb 2020 05:18:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3TcaHB7Ii5ttwa7gNmpFE8JTOocvSaJYUcH5q2MUspc=; b=O46J2M4K87tAsaD6YuGWREHi6lrANIhvv0KQMeFg9kxlxiAS+2yxIg9R7/qbdxoAms +AzeVtgpgN2WkGvYCtDULM2zbLgM1x3hEy2cbLh2ynyaCRomhdAxCuBtZUESqHn8S5fb foC0Tjs4j5MYqa4cXXwBwyE5dP3Qgx5QU6WMnuWYmqsil7HHlvXhfA3SdxRcDSyZ17kD LNmS6nonxqNAAeDHgZrNWK4ngwN7QMfWX6GtszizjcA8IGb7pQ8s6kuHDqElIuZO9JYP rPlCFqT6TgSBm5IQ/jcSUci/zjseGcaYnIz6JnijNd3Xx3q9ijcJ9+3qQsAg0Sbnl00k IWDw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXcw2oKhgUBI9U2w9F5T3wDG+rvjPIAJJkOLOyIFIAg6tdaGR9p T5DWVt8Tmha0GukHpw75JNYgdYg37Yr5WcEhtz4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwcRw3/FN88s6c7fUUwhs5mSWT5cDvvbz0uuH+DJ3UP5FnoGffBwO3gGy3M0OPU0JphFGnqdFUP8BMOzyBrGqI=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:6615:: with SMTP id r21mr1531709uam.136.1580995105504; Thu, 06 Feb 2020 05:18:25 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1862_1580982901_5E3BE275_1862_220_2_DA61A104.6FF3F%dominique.barthel@orange.com>
In-Reply-To: <1862_1580982901_5E3BE275_1862_220_2_DA61A104.6FF3F%dominique.barthel@orange.com>
From: Ana Minaburo <ana@minaburo.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 14:18:13 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOPRf-e6LPqFLaeFhurFx4Ex8xjdv8W_mpp5=g74p24pJDMszQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: BARTHEL Dominique IMT/OLPS <dominique.barthel@orange.com>
Cc: "lp-wan@ietf.org" <lp-wan@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a7c0e3059de81b84"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lp-wan/ZzkkdfJJm0ECqd96O-wnS_jH6cI>
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 13:18:28 -0000

Hello! with no limits

A2 B3

Ana

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
>