Re: [lp-wan] [AD] Re: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8824 <draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc-19.txt> NOW AVAILABLE

Carles Gomez Montenegro <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu> Wed, 02 June 2021 09:02 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 B479B3A3BA5 for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 02:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 KE18UwHg5B35 for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 02:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from violet.upc.es (violet.upc.es [147.83.2.51]) (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 695B73A3BA3 for <lp-wan@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 02:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from entelserver.upc.edu (entelserver.upc.es [147.83.40.4]) by violet.upc.es (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id 15292iff008003; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 11:02:44 +0200
Received: from webmail.entel.upc.edu (webmail.entel.upc.edu [147.83.40.6]) by entelserver.upc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E4C51D53C1; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 11:02:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from 83.53.208.63 by webmail.entel.upc.edu with HTTP; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 11:32:26 +0200
Message-ID: <b20fa3feced4813cc9891cfd388ceec9.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <24301_1622560487_60B64EE7_24301_465_1_8F1D83ADCC1AC94186A867BEE9B7D9137FD18BA4@OPEXCAUBM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <20210526215333.14DFAF407FB@rfc-editor.org> <CO1PR11MB4881F57C7E2A81366F039F25D83F9@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <24301_1622560487_60B64EE7_24301_465_1_8F1D83ADCC1AC94186A867BEE9B7D9137FD18BA4@OPEXCAUBM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 11:32:26 +0200
From: Carles Gomez Montenegro <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>
To: dominique.barthel@orange.com
Cc: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "ana@ackl.io" <ana@ackl.io>, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>, "lp-wan@ietf.org" <lp-wan@ietf.org>, "laurent.toutain@imt-atlantique.fr" <laurent.toutain@imt-atlantique.fr>, "randreasen@fi.uba.ar" <randreasen@fi.uba.ar>
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 violet
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: ACL matched, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.3.9 (violet.upc.es [147.83.2.51]); Wed, 02 Jun 2021 11:02:47 +0200 (CEST)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lp-wan/uju745fNXjVb6TVQurYYhEAzrh0>
Subject: Re: [lp-wan] [AD] Re: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8824 <draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc-19.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
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: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 09:02:58 -0000

Hello Dominique, (all,)

I support your proposal below!

In my opinion, it addresses nicely the comment being considered.

Cheers,

Carles


> 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