On Aug 10, 2011, at 20:15, Ralph Droms wrote: > Following up on Pascal's observation, I looked through the entire doc for > occurrences of "6lopwan". In my opinion, all of those occurrences could be > replaced with "IEEE802.15.4-based network"; in some cases s/the 6lowpan/an > IEEE802.15.4-based network/ In either case, note the lower-case "network".
Hmm, I'm not so sure that actually improves the text. (Consistency is the hob...) (I'm not even sure about Pascal's observation, because the reason for the insufficiency of HC1 is not with IEEE802.15.4, but with the way we use it in 6LoWPANs.) I actually think Megan's most recent version is perfect, and we should ship that. Gruesse, Carsten > > Not meaning to delay the publication process further, but I think we should > take a second to consider consistency... > > - Ralph > > On Aug 9, 2011, at 1:04 PM 8/9/11, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > >> 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
