Hello Jonathan:
> Alternatively, since draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc is only concerned about the IEEE > 802.15.4 frames and not the full IEEE 802.15.4 spec, we could have the > following as well: > "Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-based > Networks" > or > "Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams in IEEE 802.15.4 Frames" > Either works for me. I think the latter is even better. Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Jonathan Hui > Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 7:39 PM > To: Carsten Bormann > Cc: 6lowpan WG > Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Titles of 6LoWPAN RFCs > > > For draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc, we should drop the 6LoWPAN acronym and leave > it at "IEEE 802.15.4 Networks". On one hand, draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc is a bit > more specific than low-power and lossy networks - it assumes IEEE 802.15.4 > addressing at the link layer. On the other hand, draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc is a bit > more generic than Wireless Personal Area Networks. IEEE 802.15.4 (while a > part of the WPAN working group) already has IEEE task groups (some > relatively mature) that are extending IEEE 802.15.4 to other types of > networks (Smart Utility Networks, Active RFID, Industrial Networks, etc. - > many of which are far from being personal and are significantly different > from IEEE 802.15.4-2003/2006). Then there is IEEE P1901.2 (PLC) which is > planning to use IEEE 802.15.4 frames. > > Note that RFC 4944's title is "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 > Networks". draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc updates RFC 4944. > > Following that view, we could have: > "Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks". > > > -- > Jonathan Hui > > On Jun 29, 2011, at 4:20 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > > While completing the RFC editor work for 6LoWPAN-HC, the issue of > > supplying correct and useful titles for our RFCs came up again. > > You may recall that we went through a little bit of discussion already > > for 6LoWPAN-ND, which has the same problem. > > > > The exposition of the problem takes a couple of paragraphs, so bear > > with me, please. > > > > Superficially, one part of the problem is that the marker that people > > are using to find our work, 6LoWPAN, was built out of the WPAN > > abbreviation invented by IEEE. > > > > One issue with that is that, strictly speaking, 6LoWPAN would require > > a double expansion in an RFC title as in > > > > 6LoWPAN (IPv6 over Low Power WPAN (Wireless Personal Area > Networks)) > > > > WPAN also is a bad short-term politically motivated term -- it was > > needed in IEEE to get the 802.15.4 radio accepted under 802.15. > > WPAN ("Wireless Personal Area Networks") is highly misleading, as > > there is nothing at all "Personal Area" about 802.15.4 WPANs. > > The deciding characteristic is the low-power, limited-range design > > (which, as a consequence, also causes the additional characteristic of > > lossiness that ROLL has chosen for its "Low-Power/Lossy" moniker). > > > > Still, the misleading four letters WPAN are part of the now well-known > > "6LoWPAN" acronym, and we may need to use this acronym to make sure > > the document is perceived in the right scope. > > > > In the recent history of 6LoWPAN-HC being fixed up to address WGLC > > comments, there was a silent title change. > > > > HC-13 used the title: (September 27, 2010) > > Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams in 6LoWPAN Networks > > HC-14 changed this to: (February 14, 2011) > > Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams in Low Power and > > Lossy Networks (6LoWPAN) > > > > This borrows ROLL's term "Low-Power and Lossy Networks", which may > > seem natural to the authors, who have done a lot of work in ROLL. > > Note that the ROLL WG has a wider scope than the 6LoWPAN WG (it is at > > layer three, connecting different link layer technologies), so it may > > be useful to retain a distinction between 6LoWPANs and LLNs. > > > > Specifically, 6LoWPAN-HC as defined has a lot of dependencies on > > RFC 4944 and IEEE 802.15.4, so using it as-is in generic "LLNs" would > > be inappropriate. (It sure can be adapted for many non-6LoWPAN LLNs, > > but that would be a separate draft.) > > > > 6LoWPAN-ND has a similar problem. Indeed, some of the concepts of > > 6LoWPAN-ND may be applicable to a lot of networks that benefit from > > relying less on multicast. In an attempt to widen the scope, there > > was a title change when we rebooted the ND work to simplify it: > > > > ND-08: (February 1, 2010) > > 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery > > ND-09: (April 27, 2010) > > Neighbor Discovery Optimization for Low-power and Lossy Networks > > > > However, the document as it passed WGLC still is focused on 6LoWPANs > > (e.g., it contains specific support for 6COs). > > > > For both HC and ND, I don't think we properly discussed the attempted > > title changes in the WG. > > > > So what are the specific issues to be decided? > > I see at least: > > > > -- Should we drop the 6LoWPAN marker from our documents? > > (Note that RFC 4944 doesn't have it, but in the 4 years since, the > > term has gained some recognition.) > > Should there be another common marker? > > -- E.g., should we change over the whole documents (HC, ND) to LLN? > > -- Should we just refer to IEEE 802.15.4 in the title (no 6LoWPAN)? > > HC = Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4 > Networks > > ND = Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IEEE 802.15.4 Networks > > -- Or should we stick with 6LoWPAN in both title and body? > > -- If the latter, what is an appropriate expansion of 6LoWPAN? > > Can we get rid of the "Personal" in the expansion? > > -- IPv6 over Low power Wireless Personal Area Networks [RFC4944] > > -- IPv6-based Low power Wireless Personal Area Networks [RFC4944] > > -- IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks > > -- IPv6-based Low-power WPANs > > -- Other ideas? > > -- Whatever we decide about the above: > > What is the relationship between the well-known term 6LoWPAN and > > ROLL LLNs? > > > > Since 6LoWPAN-HC is waiting in the RFC editor queue, blocked for just > > this title issue, I'd like to resolve these questions quickly. > > Please provide your reasoned opinion to this mailing list by July 1. > > > > 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
