Carsten: You do not understand. My observation is not about HC1's insufficiency. It is about the fact that we agreed that the network we are talking about is a "IEEE802.15.4-based network" as opposed to an "6LoWPAN".
Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:25 PM > To: Ralph Droms (rdroms) > Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Megan Ferguson; 6lowpan; RFC Editor; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc- > 15.txt> > > 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
