Hello Megan I think that for consistency:
LOWPAN_HC1 and LOWPAN_HC2 are insufficient for most practical uses of IPv6 in 6LoWPANs. LOWPAN_HC1 is most effective for link-local Should also become LOWPAN_HC1 and LOWPAN_HC2 are insufficient for most practical uses of IPv6 in IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks. LOWPAN_HC1 is most effective for link-local Don't you think? Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: Megan Ferguson [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 5:02 PM > To: Carsten Bormann; Ralph Droms (rdroms); Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > Cc: 6lowpan; RFC Editor; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc- > 15.txt> > > Carsten, Pascal, and *ADs, > > Thank you for your reply. We have updated the title as requested. Please > note that we have also updated the expansion of 6LoWPAN (in the text) to > match that in the title of RFC 4919. Additionally, we have updated the short > title that appears in the running header of the document (this is best > reviewed in the text file below). Please review and approve these updates > or let us know if a different approach in either of these additional updates > would be preferable. > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6282-lastdiff.html > > The text, XML, and comprehensive diff files are viewable at: > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6282.txt > http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6282.xml > http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6282-diff.html > > Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view > the most recent version of the document. Please review the document > carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once the > document has been published as an RFC. > > Upon careful review, please contact us with any further updates or with > your approval of the document in its current form. > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc6282 > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/mf > > On Aug 8, 2011, at 1:44 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > > OK, I have reread all the messages, and I'm now ready to declare a (rough) > consensus for > > > > Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-based > Networks > > > > (with an ever so slight edge for the -based, which is different from RFC > 4944, but "Datagrams" is different, too). > > > > While there were a number of voices for keeping 6LoWPAN in the title (as > in RFC 4919), there did not seem to be consensus for that. > > > > I apologize for holding up this RFC for so long for what is pretty much a > bikeshed color issue. > > > > And, yes, I'm slowly getting back to IETF work, and will try to start popping > the stack. > > > > Gruesse, Carsten > > _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
