Ralph, sorry for my frustration coming through in my message and it was
not directed at you.
I agree that consistency is good, but 6lowpan is an industry term and
subset of 15.4 networks and is specific and is what the HC drafts are
targeted at.
I think that draft should stay as is and let's please move this forward.
geoff
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 15:02 -0400, Ralph Droms wrote:
> Well, characterizations as "willy-nilly" aside, I took the time to follow
> through the trail of definitions so as to know exactly what a reference like
> "The 6LoWPAN adaptation format" actually means. As RFC 4944 variously uses
> "IEEE802.15.4 network", "6LoWPAN" and "LoWPAN, I thought it might be good to
> suggest a consistent naming scheme.
>
> However, I'm willing to leave the doc the way it is; as I wrote, I don't mean
> to delay the publication process, just trying to help.
>
> - Ralph
>
> On Aug 10, 2011, at 2:50 PM 8/10/11, geoff wrote:
>
> > I completely agree with Carsten. HC1 is not applicable to 802.15.4
> > networks in general but to 6lowpan networks - they are different.
> >
> > I think we need to stop willy-nilly changes and get this document
> > published.
> >
> > geoff
> >
> > On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 20:25 +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> >> 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
> >
> >
>
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
