Le 07/07/2011 23:53, Robert Cragie a écrit :
Alex,
I don't think you're reading what I'm writing. As I said, WPAN was
chosen by the IEEE for the 802.15 WG. The 802.15 WG is about
wireless, hence the 'W'. You assume 'personal' means 'wearable',
however the IEEE actually use 'body' (as in BAN, body area network)
for this. I think 'personal' is simply meant to be the next down in
scope from 'local', that's all (and 'body' the next down from
'personal').
Yes, metropolitan-local-personal-body is logic, as is
train-bus-car-bicycle-monocycle "CAN" which may use 802.15.4. I think
802.15.4 is a good term, as well as maybe "short distance range GHz
frequency range".
It really doesn't mean much at all. Let's face it, an 802.11
metropolitan mesh network is hardly a LAN. 'Wireless' used to be the
bakelite box on the mantelpiece.
'6loan' may well have been better. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Maybe 'LOL' would have been good for Low-power and Lossy <LOL>. We
could go on forever.
Lol.
On a more serious note, I agree with Jonathan about being more
precise for HC as that is specific. Of his three suggestions, my
preference would be "Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE
802.15.4-based Networks".
I agree with Jonathan suggestions on HC draft titles because they use
the specific term 802.15.4. I will write separately.
Alex
Robert
On 07/07/2011 3:29 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list
[email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
