IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Julien CATALANO <j.catalano@kerlink.fr> Thu, 06 February 2020 16:36 UTC

Return-Path: <j.catalano@kerlink.fr>
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 E201A12006B for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:36:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.233
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, 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 o97ceQehiZ6U for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:36:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ot-mail-smtp-1.pulsation.fr (ot-mail-smtp-1.pulsation.fr [80.74.64.222]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3FF41200F1 for <lp-wan@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:36:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.5.49] (unknown [194.250.9.193]) (Authenticated sender: j.catalano@kerlink.fr) by smtp.oceamail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2FB9564E0; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 17:36:07 +0100 (CET)
To: Olivier Gimenez <ogimenez@semtech.com>, "lp-wan@ietf.org" <lp-wan@ietf.org>, BARTHEL Dominique IMT/OLPS <dominique.barthel@orange.com>
References: <12947_1580993474_5E3C0BC2_12947_94_1_DA61CA03.6FF7C%dominique.barthel@orange.com> <CACQW0EqYNhD-WC5pwn6b51HCMU=y3RKr9zz4cC9XK4t112mpaw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH7SZV9gvhF6a84Rq6BzS3NhLuvgVS1jMdsjmr+QQD2Kzg-jLQ@mail.gmail.com> <2a6a86dad23b42a49ef050344bbc4af3@semtech.com>
From: Julien CATALANO <j.catalano@kerlink.fr>
Message-ID: <fc024f07-12c0-d457-ad99-a5d47be04152@kerlink.fr>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 17:36:06 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2a6a86dad23b42a49ef050344bbc4af3@semtech.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="K2nAIHk5QR55oX4tQSOfbprD5r5gYJUB1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lp-wan/cbyepKBGZ2W7-7CeOflkNduR7pE>
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 16:36:13 -0000

Dear all,

My votes goes for A.1 B.1* as stated by Olivier: "SCHC: generic
framework for fragmentation and header compression using a static context".

Cheers
Julien

Le 06/02/2020 à 15:24, Olivier Gimenez a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
>  
>
> I vote for A3 B1.
>
> Even if B1 might be easier to read as “SCHC: generic framework for
> fragmentation and header compression using a static context” because
> the is no ambiguity that fragmentation applies to all packet and not
> only the header
>
>  
>
> Olivier
>
>
> To view our privacy policy, including the types of personal
> information we collect, process and share, and the rights and options
> you have in this respect, see www.semtech.com/legal.
>
> _______________________________________________
> lp-wan mailing list
> lp-wan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email