Thank you. On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 15:21 -0400, Ralph Droms wrote: > Megan - to be clear, I'm satisfied that the most recent version of the > document is ready to publish... > > - Ralph > > On Aug 10, 2011, at 3:02 PM 8/10/11, 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
_______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
