Re: [lp-wan] FWD: Draft SCHC for CoAP -Title

[AUDEBERT Vincent <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pascal, Laurent,

I would prefer to keep it short, like the Laurent + Ana proposal.

Regards

Vincent

De : lp-wan <[e-mail]> De la part de pthubert=[e-mail]
Envoyé : jeudi 10 juin 2021 14:40
À : Laurent Toutain <[e-mail]>
Cc : [e-mail]; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>; Ana Minaburo <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Objet : Re: [lp-wan] FWD: Draft SCHC for CoAP -Title

Hello Laurent:

So on the table (with and without acronym expansion) we have

Laurent + Ana: “SCHC for CoAP”
Dominique+Carles+me: “Compression of CoAP using the SCHC framework”

I believe that discussing whether SCHC is a protocol or a framework is already behind us, with the title of RFC 8724 becoming the de-facto definition of what SCHC is.

Q: can the draft be used for fragmentation? If not it does not leverage the whole framework but just the compression. In my book that pleads for Dominique’s proposal.

I’ll have a “Coteau du Layon” if you do not mind, very cold. I can’t seem to  like beer however hard I try.

Take care;

Pascal


From: Laurent Toutain <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: jeudi 10 juin 2021 14:20
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Ana Minaburo <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [lp-wan] FWD: Draft SCHC for CoAP -Title

Hi,

I would not like to reopen a long debate; this is the only step before an RFC and drink some beers.

I understand the RFC8724 got a long and subtile name with framework and fragmentation on it since it reflects the reality. For 8824, it like "SCHC for CoAP" with and without acronym expansion, it's simple and officialize the fact that SCHC become a name and we will not continue to say some long paraphrases.

Laurent



On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 1:50 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hello Ana

I thought we agreed that we’d refer to SCHC as a framework to indicate it  includes compression and fragmentation.
This term framework is really weird. Seems everyone understands it in a different way. .. If someone has the official definition I’m interested!
Also, we now insist that we can compress the L7 if people want to. So why should we insist on “header”? That’s where it started but that’s not where we are now, it is?

Keep safe;

Pascal
From: lp-wan <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Ana Minaburo
Sent: jeudi 3 juin 2021 11:10
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [lp-wan] FWD: Draft SCHC for CoAP -Title

Dear Dominique, Carles, and Pascal, and all,

I take this discussion out from the RFC-Editor Subject, if not I will be lost again.

We agree to eliminate the term LPWAN from the title during the interim meeting, and I've answered the RFC-Editor with this option that I like:
Full-extended:
"Static Context Header Compression and Fragmentation (SCHC) for Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)"
Full-abbreviated:
"SCHC for CoAP"

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Dominique's proposition in two things. First, starting with Compression, the title is ambiguous because it can be interpreted as data compression and no header compression. Second, I'm not sure SCHC is a framework, or neither it becomes one.

Dominique proposition: "Compression of the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) using the Static Context Header Compression and fragmentation (SCHC) framework"

Cheers,
Ana

---

>From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>Date: Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 11:14 AM
>Subject: RE: [AD] Re: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8824 <draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static->context-hc-19.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
>To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, >[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>
>
>Perfect!
>
>>From: Carles Gomez Montenegro <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>Date: Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 11:02 AM
>>Subject: Re: [lp-wan] [AD] Re: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8824 <draft-ietf-lpwan-
>>coap-static-context-hc-19.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
>>To: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, >>[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, >>[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>
>>
>>Hello Dominique, (all,)
>>
>>I support your proposal below!
>>
>>In my opinion, it addresses nicely the comment being considered.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Carles
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>Date: Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 5:14 PM
>>>Subject: RE: [AD] Re: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8824 <draft-ietf-lpwan-coap->>>static-context-hc-19.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
>>>To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, >>>[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hello authors, all,
>>>
>>>Following our interim meeting today, here is my contribution to
>>>comment 3 by RFC Ed
>>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Abstract and subsequent:  "SCHC compression",
>>>>where
>>>> used generally as a noun, looks odd.  We suggest rephrasing where
>>>>appropriate.
>>>>
> >>>We see that RFC 8724 defines "SCHC" as "Static Context Header
>>>> Compression and fragmentation".  Because this document defines
>>>>"SCHC"
>>>>as "Static Context Header Compression", "SCHC compression"
>>>>would then
>>>> read as "Static Context Header Compression compression".
>>>>
>>>> Should we expand "SCHC" as "Static Context Header
>>>>Compression and
>>>> fragmentation" per RFC 8724, instead of using the current "Static
>>>> Context Header Compression"?  That would solve the "Static
>>>>Context Header Compression compression" situation. -->
>>>
>>>This document should not redefine SCHC.
>>>Hence, I propose the following
>>>- Full title
>>>"Compression of the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) using >>>the Static Context Header Compression and fragmentation (SCHC) >>>framework"
>>>- Abstract
>>>"This draft defines how to compress the Constrained Application >>>Protocol (CoAP) using the Static Context Header Compression and >>>fragmentation (SCHC) framework. SCHC defines a header >>>compression mechanism tailored for Constrained Devices."
 >>>- Introduction, 2nd paragraph
>>>"[RFC8724] defines the SCHC famework, which includes a header >>>compression mechanism for the LPWAN network, based on a static >>>context."
>>>
>>>With the above changes, which are consistent with RFC8724 and are >>>inline with the RFC Editors suggestion, "SCHC compression" no >>>longer looks odd, and the 25 instances can remain unchanged.
>>>
>>>Best regards
>>>
>>>Dominique
>>>



Ce message et toutes les pièces jointes (ci-après le 'Message') sont établis à l'intention exclusive des destinataires et les informations qui y figurent sont strictement confidentielles. Toute utilisation de ce Message non conforme à sa destination, toute diffusion ou toute publication totale ou partielle, est interdite sauf autorisation expresse.

Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire de ce Message, il vous est interdit de le copier, de le faire suivre, de le divulguer ou d'en utiliser tout ou partie. Si vous avez reçu ce Message par erreur, merci de le supprimer de votre système, ainsi que toutes ses copies, et de n'en garder aucune trace sur quelque support que ce soit. Nous vous remercions également d'en avertir immédiatement l'expéditeur par retour du message.

Il est impossible de garantir que les communications par messagerie électronique arrivent en temps utile, sont sécurisées ou dénuées de toute erreur ou virus.
____________________________________________________

This message and any attachments (the 'Message') are intended solely for the addressees. The information contained in this Message is confidential. Any use of information contained in this Message not in accord with its purpose, any dissemination or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited except formal approval.

If you are not the addressee, you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return message.

E-mail communication cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error or virus-free.