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

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Thu, 06 February 2020 11:38 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.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 4BFF4120129 for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 03:38:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=Y+cmavnU; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=RxX1bcf+
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 mIm1NYGx4fWF for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 03:38:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8492F12009C for <lp-wan@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 03:38:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11877; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1580989100; x=1582198700; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=yXRKXMFK8EyPGe6YWHuF0WC1e/5aS6Wuv/zjEqJn97I=; b=Y+cmavnUAdmtX/rTHlZUOpmfv2oNDeZ0sfuIfHnoJ+/SgOwaCMu5A94x fTK1MaYkXnRlYvvTv+Vl/KoGyYCSDQNT8zYuaWBHPdYMiupPPV65zxkka Zw1On8CdBTejWuqeS2KQzg7I6cl0iYxx+dJIQXKqXC2MW0+qmGSFxW2/g Y=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:okRTYhGvz6yWg1d4sfj7VJ1GYnJ96bzpIg4Y7IYmgLtSc6Oluo7vJ1Hb+e4z1Q3SRYuO7fVChqKWqK3mVWEaqbe5+HEZON0pNVcejNkO2QkpAcqLE0r+eeb2bzEwEd5efFRk5Hq8d0NSHZW2ag==
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CZCwB2+Tte/5NdJa1mHQEBAQkBEQUFAYF7gVRQBWxYIAQLKoQVg0YDiwCCOpNVhGKBQoEQA1QJAQEBDAEBGAEKCgIBAYRAAheCJSQ4EwIDDQEBBAEBAQIBBQRthTcBC4VnAgEDAQEQER0BASwGBQEPAgEIQgICAiULJQIEDgUigwQBgX1NAy4BAgygIAKBOYhidYEygn8BAQWCRIJsGIIMAwaBOIUehwQagUE/gREnDBSCTD6CZAEBgTABCwcBA4MuMoIsjUqDEYViJIlYjzYKgjqWRhuCSIgQkDOOYpsjAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFpImdxcBUaISoBgkFQGA2OHYNzhRSFP3SBKYpIEReCGwEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,409,1574121600"; d="scan'208,217";a="628968051"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 06 Feb 2020 11:38:19 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com (xch-rcd-006.cisco.com [173.37.102.16]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 016BcJNB007812 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 6 Feb 2020 11:38:19 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com (173.37.102.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 05:38:18 -0600
Received: from xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 06:38:17 -0500
Received: from NAM10-BN7-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 06:38:17 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Osx88CR0ME1H/v6MZBur8vLefrgSoUVGZuwRPDCXwtaiRSJHVcpc5983jC7NglnoSNS8b0aiZnsTDkRAY1eERFO7QU42ZjsO1DSRcB6adPOTyCHNx3eUtlO8FqNhELWcWBkYv9vxvQCqez0eHkAWFeQiN2NPbOpiO3qDmFGWgGB2TImLFSzWLuZ9LO0fLTI/bS4gHIrgosuA8kmmDvCuK8SugQjIfMegXCOaLbLj/xrBpQbuawJCDzsohgzLL2611j8Bcwn/o1qFttPhwHR88LW06pEypP6/WTYQhsen1fLOhciCN2/iq+c+YHLOpGoYapeECKVKKXKzIjvi1im8sQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=yXRKXMFK8EyPGe6YWHuF0WC1e/5aS6Wuv/zjEqJn97I=; b=KqytHbKk67AZLInLsLzraOo10b7lVCcao4EBeIVnxHBfJFPjH8Ai4a5RzX5180OtPCaQT70IDc0vzia4GaMzr+PAkCujeQLO3YsOdwpT1gnc2+mgUumwo5M/srPFgPhbtgS+Zjpdb6xRf7HRKpLUZ8iuJSGXipkiWGmxyuRHCky+pv21REQkn6bJydQYKuD3Rh8N7HV+92bs8reImG5NHF8oJp1vn8O9alSfi8gw55NsiaSKgMIt6dz5uHyDAT0y2ceuFiF0r9yuiH6tcviSszOOFWWjCza57GHHNx4pe1CcZlay1zL0lPMpkARq96p9wmLFKOKnlvrepAjgTwoCbg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=yXRKXMFK8EyPGe6YWHuF0WC1e/5aS6Wuv/zjEqJn97I=; b=RxX1bcf+b9w1XKwYSbxWyhG7juXX/3qGk6Yu0mMoeVUYFw6VgXcpEEgmz8E6VF6cAcjf+0DCoNejIA2ScanrjX2k1FpgaSZG2XYTFQHHe+7FcoHuVzyo7YWRM35aAWVuxreDjYgddnX6t/LZksGOqAzlZmSPALh769Cj+qhB2l0=
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.250.159) by MN2PR11MB3568.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.251.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2707.21; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 11:38:16 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::fd76:1534:4f9a:452a]) by MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::fd76:1534:4f9a:452a%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2707.023; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 11:38:16 +0000
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: "dominique.barthel@orange.com" <dominique.barthel@orange.com>
CC: "lp-wan@ietf.org" <lp-wan@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [lp-wan] SCHC RFC-to-be title?
Thread-Index: AQHV3NN+fdRLhM/DvUiiZX6lc5mQd6gOCjBk
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 11:38:16 +0000
Message-ID: <DE8A55A6-FA11-4651-A2CF-4833D65ECA8E@cisco.com>
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>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=pthubert@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2a01:cb1d:4ec:2200:a0e2:fb3b:ad26:54fd]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 64b9f72d-749b-4b5e-b3e7-08d7aaf90e68
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB3568:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB3568DFB2172E4598ED5D018BD81D0@MN2PR11MB3568.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0305463112
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(136003)(366004)(39860400002)(376002)(346002)(396003)(199004)(189003)(36756003)(6512007)(86362001)(66574012)(5660300002)(4326008)(2616005)(33656002)(2906002)(6486002)(6916009)(8936002)(66476007)(66556008)(76116006)(6506007)(91956017)(71200400001)(8676002)(81166006)(66946007)(81156014)(66446008)(186003)(64756008)(966005)(478600001)(316002)(244885003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB3568; H:MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: cTbsji7R8uZl0NpbWSDRhy1asYw+NIFVfu+pjYcLlBMAKzLKS8nxc1HmY9kYmkupFMMKlWVRTJ6VH0hP5vI+9B/EO7sXK9XkoITW/6x61Vamy8c/THQcSURgamuOHEVu1W7BbKucfP0+RdSGpY7szyYopK9gnuYDl3+3z2iif3Ra9M83zJTSuhfY2sfJwnGK4Bs8QjT/SZZ+TxaNfwPUnw==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DE8A55A6FA114651A2CF4833D65ECA8Eciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 64b9f72d-749b-4b5e-b3e7-08d7aaf90e68
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 06 Feb 2020 11:38:16.0596 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: nztV6jHQ3Y400La0iNDoFv1T9tB26e/umyZOqBhpAItqoMry+b5SDN7Pi/tVsgpHrXKc94AZ/VJuHHyx5SD+tA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB3568
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.16, xch-rcd-006.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-11.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lp-wan/gl0GyzTNHk5tmxvJTmji7OAHohE>
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 11:38:23 -0000

A2B3

No point limiting to LPWAN !


Regards,

Pascal

Le 6 févr. 2020 à 10:55, "dominique.barthel@orange.com" <dominique.barthel@orange.com> a écrit :


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