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:mfergu...@amsl.com] >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 5:02 PM >>>>>> To: Carsten Bormann; Ralph Droms (rdroms); Pascal Thubert (pthubert) >>>>>> Cc: 6lowpan; RFC Editor; 6lowpan-...@tools.ietf.org >>>>>> 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 >>> 6lowpan@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan >> >> > _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list 6lowpan@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
