Le 07/07/2011 14:23, Robert Cragie a écrit :
+1.
I don't think we should get too hung up on WPAN. It's just a name
chosen for 802.15 WG. It's subjective as to how appropriate it really
is. To be precise, 802.15.4 is the low power, low data rate WPAN in
802.15 so loWPAN is a reasonable, pronounceable abbreviation which
implies 802.15.4 in the context of 802.15 but could mean other
similar types of network in other contexts.
Hmm... except that "W" in WPAN makes little sense on PLC contexts
(RPL has "PLC" in text).
"P" in PAN is risky too because ND may work on short-range yet
non-wearable networks.
"loan" would be more generic - LOw-power Area Network.
Alex
Robert
On 29/06/2011 12:45 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
Hi Carsten:
Maybe the answer depends on the draft. HC depends on the 802.15.4
for some of the compression procedure and it makes sense that this
appears in the title.
ND does not have such a strong link to the MAC so there is no
point pinpointing 802.15.4 or any specific IEEE. Rather, ND makes
sense because of the NBMA nature of the network, and the desire to
save multicast operation, which is common to LLNs. So I do not
think we need to change ND.
Finally, 6LoWPAN as a name as become a lot more than what the
acronym could initially stand for. I do not think the drafts should
use 6LoWPAN for what it expands to, but rather as the name of the
WG that defined all those drafts.
Cheers,
Pascal
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:20 PM To: 6lowpan WG Subject:
[6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs
While completing the RFC editor work for 6LoWPAN-HC, the issue
of supplying correct and useful titles for our RFCs came up
again. You may recall that we went through a little bit of
discussion already for 6LoWPAN-ND, which has the same problem.
The exposition of the problem takes a couple of paragraphs, so
bear with me, please.
Superficially, one part of the problem is that the marker that
people are using to find our work, 6LoWPAN, was built out of the
WPAN abbreviation invented by IEEE.
One issue with that is that, strictly speaking, 6LoWPAN would
require a double expansion in an RFC title as in
6LoWPAN (IPv6 over Low Power WPAN (Wireless Personal Area
Networks))
WPAN also is a bad short-term politically motivated term -- it
was needed in IEEE to get the 802.15.4 radio accepted under
802.15. WPAN ("Wireless Personal Area Networks") is highly
misleading, as there is nothing at all "Personal Area" about
802.15.4 WPANs. The deciding characteristic is the low-power,
limited-range design (which, as a consequence, also causes the
additional characteristic of lossiness that ROLL has chosen for
its "Low-Power/Lossy" moniker).
Still, the misleading four letters WPAN are part of the now
well-known "6LoWPAN" acronym, and we may need to use this acronym
to make sure the document is perceived in the right scope.
In the recent history of 6LoWPAN-HC being fixed up to address
WGLC comments, there was a silent title change.
HC-13 used the title: (September 27, 2010) Compression Format for
IPv6 Datagrams in 6LoWPAN Networks HC-14 changed this to:
(February 14, 2011) Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams in Low
Power and Lossy Networks (6LoWPAN)
This borrows ROLL's term "Low-Power and Lossy Networks", which
may seem natural to the authors, who have done a lot of work in
ROLL. Note that the ROLL WG has a wider scope than the 6LoWPAN WG
(it is at layer three, connecting different link layer
technologies), so it may be useful to retain a distinction
between 6LoWPANs and LLNs.
Specifically, 6LoWPAN-HC as defined has a lot of dependencies on
RFC 4944 and IEEE 802.15.4, so using it as-is in generic "LLNs"
would be inappropriate. (It sure can be adapted for many
non-6LoWPAN LLNs, but that would be a separate draft.)
6LoWPAN-ND has a similar problem. Indeed, some of the concepts
of 6LoWPAN-ND may be applicable to a lot of networks that benefit
from relying less on multicast. In an attempt to widen the scope,
there was a title change when we rebooted the ND work to simplify
it:
ND-08: (February 1, 2010) 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery ND-09:
(April 27, 2010) Neighbor Discovery Optimization for Low-power
and Lossy Networks
However, the document as it passed WGLC still is focused on
6LoWPANs (e.g., it contains specific support for 6COs).
For both HC and ND, I don't think we properly discussed the
attempted title changes in the WG.
So what are the specific issues to be decided? I see at least:
-- Should we drop the 6LoWPAN marker from our documents? (Note
that RFC 4944 doesn't have it, but in the 4 years since, the term
has gained some recognition.) Should there be another common
marker? -- E.g., should we change over the whole documents (HC,
ND) to LLN? -- Should we just refer to IEEE 802.15.4 in the title
(no 6LoWPAN)? HC = Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over
IEEE 802.15.4
Networks
ND = Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IEEE 802.15.4 Networks
-- Or should we stick with 6LoWPAN in both title and body? -- If
the latter, what is an appropriate expansion of 6LoWPAN? Can we
get rid of the "Personal" in the expansion? -- IPv6 over Low
power Wireless Personal Area Networks [RFC4944] -- IPv6-based Low
power Wireless Personal Area Networks [RFC4944] -- IPv6 over
Low-Power Wireless Area Networks -- IPv6-based Low-power WPANs --
Other ideas? -- Whatever we decide about the above: What is the
relationship between the well-known term 6LoWPAN and ROLL LLNs?
Since 6LoWPAN-HC is waiting in the RFC editor queue, blocked for
just this title issue, I'd like to resolve these questions
quickly. Please provide your reasoned opinion to this mailing
list by July 1.
Gruesse, Carsten
_______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing
list [email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing
list [email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list
[email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
