From cabo@tzi.org Mon Aug 8 10:43:55 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E80621F8B3C for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:43:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O+eCxoa6ARJp for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:43:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9415821F8B1F for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:43:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p78HiDp3003505; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 19:44:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.100] (p5B3E65CD.dip.t-dialin.net [91.62.101.205]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 339C7CEA; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 19:44:13 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 19:44:12 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <56748029-05E7-4B09-8C50-C9EADD5629A0@tzi.org> References: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05228480@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> To: 6lowpan WG <6lowpan@ietf.org>, RFC Editor X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:43:55 -0000 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 From cabo@tzi.org Mon Aug 8 10:57:27 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 418F621F8686 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:57:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m7eaDdg-sjIh for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:57:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3430A21F8571 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:57:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p78HvhiT006418; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 19:57:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.100] (p5B3E65CD.dip.t-dialin.net [91.62.101.205]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 270CACED; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 19:57:43 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <4E2B1CA2.2080505@saloits.com> Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 19:57:42 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <34049503-CCC7-4872-A8F9-6D4311BE65A2@tzi.org> References: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05228480@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <4E2B1CA2.2080505@saloits.com> To: "Timothy J. Salo" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: 6lowpan WG <6lowpan@ietf.org> Subject: [6lowpan] Usage of "6LoWPAN" in vernacular X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:57:27 -0000 On Jul 23, 2011, at 21:10, Timothy J. Salo wrote: > "6lowpan", I believe, fails the test of speaking to a broader audience > and having longevity. Today, few people know what 6lowpan means, and > in the future it will be merely an interesting (or not-so-interesting) > historical footnote. Using "6lowpan" feels sort of like using a > development code name for a marketing name. I find that position interesting, because it reflects a perception that = is quite different from mine. Let's ask the universal arbiter in all matters terminology: http://www.google.com/search?q=3Dzigbee "zigbee - Google Search" -- 7,100,000 http://www.google.com/search?q=3D802.15.4 "802.15.4 - Google Search" -- 2,020,000 http://www.google.com/search?q=3D6lowpan "6lowpan - Google Search" -- 388,000 Depending on your google cookies, you may get different numbers, but one = thing is clear: While 6lowpan does not have the age and the marketing power of zigbee, = it sure shows a presence. If you google recent journalistic news, you find gems such as = http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/android-bulb-to-run-on-6lowpan= -standard/ "Google's Android Bulb to Run on 6LowPAN Standard : Greentech Media" http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/7/prweb8635665.htm "ZigBee/802.15.4 Module Revenues to Approach $1.7 Billion in 2015" -- = =93One of the most disruptive developments over the past couple of years = is the emergence of IPv6/6LoWPAN,=94=20 = http://www.infoworld.com/d/data-center/10-technologies-will-change-the-wor= ld-in-the-next-10-years-184 "10 technologies that will change the world in the next 10 years | Data = Center - InfoWorld" And 6lowpan has already started a family: Kerry Lynn named his brilliant IPv6 over MS/TP proposal "6lobac". I'd say the term 6lowpan definitely has arrived, and we should not = hesitate to use it as a shorthand for the "IPv6 right to the = embedded/wireless sensor node" approach. Gruesse, Carsten From pthubert@cisco.com Tue Aug 9 10:04:13 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BB1621F8C94 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:04:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.472 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.472 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.127, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EXCc59-LuVyv for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:04:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F0DB21F8C93 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:04:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=pthubert@cisco.com; l=2904; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1312909482; x=1314119082; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=Sdbs47hNMd6YVIoKjERMIajNLy6H656OnBqQR3neUZw=; b=SFi/WVAD/lZHXwIBAZcgzMUewac+G9bDDixnBLzLpX+TX3Fff0kgBTlt v3l7rFFrHAorl6/txmFwMrmMR6zcQLmWf3yF3wPLN8NLaWuqlNi0Mdz2A o48/QyBWhxv7JdvqNU5IA5U/b89npcY3J7cBqfOOnDPs7LwLNzfXsefDu M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuAAAGdoQU6Q/khM/2dsb2JhbABCl2CPXneBQAEBAQEDEgEdCj8MBAIBCA4DBAEBAQoGFwEGAUUJCAEBBAESCBqHT6APAZ5rhWdfBJgXi1s X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,344,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="48300714" Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Aug 2011 17:04:41 +0000 Received: from xbh-ams-201.cisco.com (xbh-ams-201.cisco.com [144.254.75.7]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p79H4frk003050; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 17:04:41 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-107.cisco.com ([144.254.74.82]) by xbh-ams-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 9 Aug 2011 19:04:40 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 19:04:37 +0200 Message-ID: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3C92@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <430C1B59-E048-4CC7-9E75-EF4E54D1104F@amsl.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 Thread-Index: AcxWpVncV4aTcfJjQVW31kgCp73jAQAEMVMQ References: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05228480@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <56748029-05E7-4B09-8C50-C9EADD5629A0@tzi.org> <430C1B59-E048-4CC7-9E75-EF4E54D1104F@amsl.com> From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: "Megan Ferguson" , "Carsten Bormann" , "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Aug 2011 17:04:40.0967 (UTC) FILETIME=[6D98D170:01CC56B6] Cc: 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org, 6lowpan <6lowpan@ietf.org>, RFC Editor Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:04:13 -0000 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:mferguson@amsl.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 5:02 PM > To: Carsten Bormann; Ralph Droms (rdroms); Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > Cc: 6lowpan; RFC Editor; 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 15.txt> >=20 > Carsten, Pascal, and *ADs, >=20 > 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. >=20 > http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6282-lastdiff.html >=20 > The text, XML, and comprehensive diff files are viewable at: >=20 > 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 >=20 > 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. >=20 > Upon careful review, please contact us with any further updates or with > your approval of the document in its current form. >=20 > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >=20 > http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc6282 >=20 > Thank you. >=20 > RFC Editor/mf >=20 > On Aug 8, 2011, at 1:44 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: >=20 > > 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 > > From cabo@tzi.org Wed Aug 10 11:25:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F4D921F8ACA for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:25:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -107.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QdQ7uxzFtNgd for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:25:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 462D121F8AB8 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:25:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7AIPRwU023504; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 20:25:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eduroam-0711.wlan.uni-bremen.de (eduroam-0711.wlan.uni-bremen.de [134.102.18.199]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4617247E; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 20:25:27 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 20:25:26 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05228480@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <56748029-05E7-4B09-8C50-C9EADD5629A0@tzi.org> <430C1B59-E048-4CC7-9E75-EF4E54D1104F@amsl.com> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3C92@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> To: Ralph Droms X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: Megan Ferguson , 6lowpan <6lowpan@ietf.org>, 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org, RFC Editor Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:25:12 -0000 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 >=20 > Not meaning to delay the publication process further, but I think we = should take a second to consider consistency... >=20 > - Ralph >=20 > On Aug 9, 2011, at 1:04 PM 8/9/11, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: >=20 >> Hello Megan >>=20 >> I think that for consistency: >>=20 >> LOWPAN_HC1 and LOWPAN_HC2 are insufficient for most practical uses = of >> IPv6 in 6LoWPANs. LOWPAN_HC1 is most effective for link-local >>=20 >> Should also become >>=20 >> 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 >>=20 >> Don't you think? >>=20 >> Pascal >>=20 >>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Megan Ferguson [mailto:mferguson@amsl.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 5:02 PM >>> To: Carsten Bormann; Ralph Droms (rdroms); Pascal Thubert (pthubert) >>> Cc: 6lowpan; RFC Editor; 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 >> >> 15.txt> >>>=20 >>> Carsten, Pascal, and *ADs, >>>=20 >>> 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. >>>=20 >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6282-lastdiff.html >>>=20 >>> The text, XML, and comprehensive diff files are viewable at: >>>=20 >>> 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 >>>=20 >>> 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. >>>=20 >>> Upon careful review, please contact us with any further updates or >> with >>> your approval of the document in its current form. >>>=20 >>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >>>=20 >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc6282 >>>=20 >>> Thank you. >>>=20 >>> RFC Editor/mf >>>=20 >>> On Aug 8, 2011, at 1:44 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: >>>=20 >>>> OK, I have reread all the messages, and I'm now ready to declare a >> (rough) >>> consensus for >>>>=20 >>>> Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-based >>> Networks >>>>=20 >>>> (with an ever so slight edge for the -based, which is different = from >> RFC >>> 4944, but "Datagrams" is different, too). >>>>=20 >>>> 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. >>>>=20 >>>> I apologize for holding up this RFC for so long for what is pretty >> much a >>> bikeshed color issue. >>>>=20 >>>> And, yes, I'm slowly getting back to IETF work, and will try to >> start popping >>> the stack. >>>>=20 >>>> Gruesse, Carsten >>>>=20 >>=20 From geoff@proto6.com Wed Aug 10 11:50:05 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 437FB21F8B13 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:50:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NBWpPunbN4xa for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:50:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server2.coslabs.com (server2.coslabs.com [64.111.18.234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8193C21F8B12 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:50:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grab.coslabs.com (mail.coslabs.com [199.233.92.34]) by server2.coslabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5191C184D3; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:50:38 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [199.233.92.6] (unknown [199.233.92.6]) by grab.coslabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 652D71600AE; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:50:31 -0600 (MDT) From: geoff To: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: References: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05228480@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <56748029-05E7-4B09-8C50-C9EADD5629A0@tzi.org> <430C1B59-E048-4CC7-9E75-EF4E54D1104F@amsl.com> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3C92@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:50:34 -0600 Message-ID: <1313002234.15378.54.camel@d430> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Megan Ferguson , RFC Editor , 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org, 6lowpan <6lowpan@ietf.org>, Ralph Droms Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:50:05 -0000 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:mferguson@amsl.com] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 5:02 PM > >>> To: Carsten Bormann; Ralph Droms (rdroms); Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > >>> Cc: 6lowpan; RFC Editor; 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org > >>> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 > >> >>> 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 From cabo@tzi.org Wed Aug 10 12:17:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E4D11E8078 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:17:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7057Vx4BKcOw for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:17:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C30A11E807D for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:17:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7AJIBJY009903; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:18:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eduroam-0711.wlan.uni-bremen.de (eduroam-0711.wlan.uni-bremen.de [134.102.18.199]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9CA1D48F; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:18:11 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <8FD192A3-8CBA-40A5-A93C-01E4BA42E10D@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:18:10 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0E20B5D0-5D13-425E-B16C-00F677C3EA66@tzi.org> References: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05228480@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <56748029-05E7-4B09-8C50-C9EADD5629A0@tzi.org> <430C1B59-E048-4CC7-9E75-EF4E54D1104F@amsl.com> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3C92@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <1313002234.15378.54.camel@d430> <8FD192A3-8CBA-40A5-A93C-01E4BA42E10D@cisco.com> To: Ralph Droms X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: geoff , Megan Ferguson , RFC Editor , 6lowpan 6lowpan <6lowpan@ietf.org>, 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:17:53 -0000 On Aug 10, 2011, at 21:02, Ralph Droms wrote: > I thought it might be good to suggest a consistent naming scheme. Yes, maybe we could do a better job on the next 6lowpan WG document (ND) = -- pre-AUTH48. Gruesse, Carsten From rdroms.ietf@gmail.com Wed Aug 10 12:21:31 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C63B711E8089 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:21:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.544 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6IYwGd-g46ET for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:21:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A944C11E8078 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:21:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vxi29 with SMTP id 29so1376225vxi.31 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:21:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=oV6sOuEN87OgH8ROIFe9nzdQObPrbKg5S8AINsQNx6U=; b=c70rl3j/TdVQ2+olOMtRFBEg1SRLDfuWqLfYrBIYejbpEHhcM9+SZP9aT6C5yJhhyN WDVCWMrtpsoShrvAcNTEI0UH3zdUbY7Q+9/+9A36OOyZPb5EZ5tiKT8nZg0SI0hWO+kw l6TwmGZzH5mJAW274HA4vAFelk4zXul3BCksY= Received: by 10.52.65.194 with SMTP id z2mr9011004vds.76.1313004114595; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:21:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bxb-rdroms-8712.cisco.com (198-135-0-233.cisco.com [198.135.0.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k10sm896303vdi.43.2011.08.10.12.21.52 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:21:53 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ralph Droms In-Reply-To: <8FD192A3-8CBA-40A5-A93C-01E4BA42E10D@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:21:50 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05228480@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <56748029-05E7-4B09-8C50-C9EADD5629A0@tzi.org> <430C1B59-E048-4CC7-9E75-EF4E54D1104F@amsl.com> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3C92@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <1313002234.15378.54.camel@d430> <8FD192A3-8CBA-40A5-A93C-01E4BA42E10D@cisco.com> To: Megan Ferguson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: Droms Ralph , RFC Editor , geoff Mulligan , Carsten Bormann , 6lowpan 6lowpan <6lowpan@ietf.org>, 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:21:31 -0000 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > - Ralph >=20 > On Aug 10, 2011, at 2:50 PM 8/10/11, geoff wrote: >=20 >> I completely agree with Carsten. HC1 is not applicable to 802.15.4 >> networks in general but to 6lowpan networks - they are different. >>=20 >> I think we need to stop willy-nilly changes and get this document >> published. >>=20 >> geoff >>=20 >> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 20:25 +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote: >>> On Aug 10, 2011, at 20:15, Ralph Droms wrote: >>>=20 >>>> 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". >>>=20 >>> 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.) >>>=20 >>> I actually think Megan's most recent version is perfect, and we = should ship that. >>>=20 >>> Gruesse, Carsten >>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Not meaning to delay the publication process further, but I think = we should take a second to consider consistency... >>>>=20 >>>> - Ralph >>>>=20 >>>> On Aug 9, 2011, at 1:04 PM 8/9/11, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>> Hello Megan >>>>>=20 >>>>> I think that for consistency: >>>>>=20 >>>>> LOWPAN_HC1 and LOWPAN_HC2 are insufficient for most practical uses = of >>>>> IPv6 in 6LoWPANs. LOWPAN_HC1 is most effective for link-local >>>>>=20 >>>>> Should also become >>>>>=20 >>>>> 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 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Don't you think? >>>>>=20 >>>>> Pascal >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Megan Ferguson [mailto:mferguson@amsl.com] >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 5:02 PM >>>>>> To: Carsten Bormann; Ralph Droms (rdroms); Pascal Thubert = (pthubert) >>>>>> Cc: 6lowpan; RFC Editor; 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 >>>>> >>>>> 15.txt> >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Carsten, Pascal, and *ADs, >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> 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. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6282-lastdiff.html >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> The text, XML, and comprehensive diff files are viewable at: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> 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. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Upon careful review, please contact us with any further updates = or >>>>> with >>>>>> your approval of the document in its current form. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc6282 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> RFC Editor/mf >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> On Aug 8, 2011, at 1:44 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> OK, I have reread all the messages, and I'm now ready to declare = a >>>>> (rough) >>>>>> consensus for >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE = 802.15.4-based >>>>>> Networks >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> (with an ever so slight edge for the -based, which is different = from >>>>> RFC >>>>>> 4944, but "Datagrams" is different, too). >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> I apologize for holding up this RFC for so long for what is = pretty >>>>> much a >>>>>> bikeshed color issue. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> And, yes, I'm slowly getting back to IETF work, and will try to >>>>> start popping >>>>>> the stack. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Gruesse, Carsten >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 6lowpan mailing list >>> 6lowpan@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan >>=20 >>=20 >=20 From geoff@proto6.com Wed Aug 10 12:36:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46BDA21F8B24 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:36:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gzv9tqKOM2uz for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:36:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server2.coslabs.com (server2.coslabs.com [64.111.18.234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E20421F86BD for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:36:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grab.coslabs.com (mail.coslabs.com [199.233.92.34]) by server2.coslabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44146184D3; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:36:36 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [199.233.92.6] (unknown [199.233.92.6]) by grab.coslabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B498B1600AE; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:36:28 -0600 (MDT) From: geoff To: Ralph Droms In-Reply-To: <8FD192A3-8CBA-40A5-A93C-01E4BA42E10D@cisco.com> References: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05228480@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <56748029-05E7-4B09-8C50-C9EADD5629A0@tzi.org> <430C1B59-E048-4CC7-9E75-EF4E54D1104F@amsl.com> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3C92@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <1313002234.15378.54.camel@d430> <8FD192A3-8CBA-40A5-A93C-01E4BA42E10D@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:36:32 -0600 Message-ID: <1313004992.15378.62.camel@d430> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Megan Ferguson , RFC Editor , Carsten Bormann , 6lowpan 6lowpan <6lowpan@ietf.org>, 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:36:02 -0000 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:mferguson@amsl.com] > >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 5:02 PM > >>>>> To: Carsten Bormann; Ralph Droms (rdroms); Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > >>>>> Cc: 6lowpan; RFC Editor; 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org > >>>>> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 > >>>> >>>>> 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 > > > > > From geoff@proto6.com Wed Aug 10 12:36:46 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5186221F8B2C for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:36:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9im6IOkC9HPA for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:36:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server2.coslabs.com (server2.coslabs.com [64.111.18.234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85BDF21F86BD for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:36:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grab.coslabs.com (mail.coslabs.com [199.233.92.34]) by server2.coslabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C3C1184D4; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:37:21 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [199.233.92.6] (unknown [199.233.92.6]) by grab.coslabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2B081600AE; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:37:13 -0600 (MDT) From: geoff To: Ralph Droms In-Reply-To: References: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05228480@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <56748029-05E7-4B09-8C50-C9EADD5629A0@tzi.org> <430C1B59-E048-4CC7-9E75-EF4E54D1104F@amsl.com> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3C92@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <1313002234.15378.54.camel@d430> <8FD192A3-8CBA-40A5-A93C-01E4BA42E10D@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:37:17 -0600 Message-ID: <1313005037.15378.63.camel@d430> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: 6lowpan 6lowpan <6lowpan@ietf.org>, Droms Ralph , Megan Ferguson , Carsten Bormann , 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org, RFC Editor Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:36:46 -0000 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:mferguson@amsl.com] > >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 5:02 PM > >>>>>> To: Carsten Bormann; Ralph Droms (rdroms); Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > >>>>>> Cc: 6lowpan; RFC Editor; 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 > >>>>> >>>>>> 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 From pthubert@cisco.com Thu Aug 11 00:58:56 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ED5F21F8AED for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:58:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.145 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.145 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.454, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xViUlsyeBKf3 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:58:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39A1721F8A36 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:58:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=pthubert@cisco.com; l=4854; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1313049569; x=1314259169; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=ZS5MshLTD2tPudZ1Dj3+6JilqQQT1c2Z8i6Keeji8N4=; b=UWG3lzfPwN3YgsoZfBb6m8uWGZGmy8xhhbRnyQhRJYS9JTPct+gU3lsA 1zTaBmxnLopQvW6lyFxLHeFGIzsq7DvvXvOY3Yxnm7KMKrIMt3pwqCdMp OdfBI3jKlsSBmSUaj8CR4AYoiWc5Gsk9dsKTl2T4ZE9MUAVyZefm6QG7x A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtMAAJyLQ06Q/khM/2dsb2JhbABBl3uPTHeBQAEBAQEDEgEdCj8MBAIBCA4DBAEBAQoGFwEGAUUJCAEBBAESCBqHUJ4MAZ5phWdfBJgii10 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,355,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="49705748" Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Aug 2011 07:59:27 +0000 Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7B7xRjL030135; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 07:59:27 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-107.cisco.com ([144.254.74.82]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:59:27 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:59:10 +0200 Message-ID: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05465A92@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 Thread-Index: AcxXiu3HKy4ghwsjTAS9QNDkcF93bgAcU/Sw References: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05228480@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <56748029-05E7-4B09-8C50-C9EADD5629A0@tzi.org> <430C1B59-E048-4CC7-9E75-EF4E54D1104F@amsl.com> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3C92@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: "Carsten Bormann" , "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Aug 2011 07:59:27.0762 (UTC) FILETIME=[97D55F20:01CC57FC] Cc: Megan Ferguson , 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org, 6lowpan <6lowpan@ietf.org>, RFC Editor Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 07:58:56 -0000 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:cabo@tzi.org] > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:25 PM > To: Ralph Droms (rdroms) > Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Megan Ferguson; 6lowpan; RFC Editor; > 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 15.txt> >=20 > On Aug 10, 2011, at 20:15, Ralph Droms wrote: >=20 > > 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". >=20 > 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.) >=20 > I actually think Megan's most recent version is perfect, and we should ship > that. >=20 > Gruesse, Carsten >=20 > > > > 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:mferguson@amsl.com] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 5:02 PM > >>> To: Carsten Bormann; Ralph Droms (rdroms); Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > >>> Cc: 6lowpan; RFC Editor; 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org > >>> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 > >> >>> 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 > >>>> > >> From pthubert@cisco.com Thu Aug 11 01:03:57 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFA5C21F85EE for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 01:03:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.158 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.158 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.441, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YYiRr1TGKBZw for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 01:03:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8730721F85EC for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 01:03:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=pthubert@cisco.com; l=4259; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1313049870; x=1314259470; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=vzUeqovOlVZiiQ0KkYCTtFGZfTDfxMNkrTnm6c+1Yc0=; b=mvAq2NqkTJJvrab++xQXLbTJ8aA6di3oX9xuu4w/guCnYaflZGtTIxUl eamlcMcBzWOJcOC/av6iGMR79x5bdyuHYndfJl0/My5aYXWhROwXYnFvg bJliOvkeCYJYQ9rDCYu4MygQaRVd3nzL/0J1JrIBtYF5beLk+UGEWAEQc E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtMAAMeMQ06Q/khL/2dsb2JhbABBl3uPTHeBQAEBAQEDEgEdCj8MBAIBCBEEAQEBCgYXAQYBRQkIAQEEARIIGodQnX0BnmmFZ18EmCKLXQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,355,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="49709886" Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Aug 2011 08:04:26 +0000 Received: from xbh-ams-201.cisco.com (xbh-ams-201.cisco.com [144.254.75.7]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7B84QVd001290; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 08:04:26 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-107.cisco.com ([144.254.74.82]) by xbh-ams-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:04:26 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:04:22 +0200 Message-ID: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05465A99@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 Thread-Index: AcxXiXWhiu/d2kDjS76xsdXvy9PttQAc6Sgw References: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05228480@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <56748029-05E7-4B09-8C50-C9EADD5629A0@tzi.org> <430C1B59-E048-4CC7-9E75-EF4E54D1104F@amsl.com> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3C92@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" , "Megan Ferguson" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Aug 2011 08:04:26.0531 (UTC) FILETIME=[49E9E730:01CC57FD] Cc: Carsten Bormann , 6lowpan <6lowpan@ietf.org>, 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org, RFC Editor Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 08:03:57 -0000 Hi Megan; I do 100% agree with Ralph here. I'd prefer that we make that change before publish. Apart from that, I'm perfectly happy with the text as it stands. Cheers, Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: Ralph Droms (rdroms) > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:15 PM > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Megan Ferguson; Carsten Bormann; 6lowpan; RFC > Editor; 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 15.txt> >=20 > 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". >=20 > Not meaning to delay the publication process further, but I think we should > take a second to consider consistency... >=20 > - Ralph >=20 > On Aug 9, 2011, at 1:04 PM 8/9/11, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: >=20 > > 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:mferguson@amsl.com] > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 5:02 PM > >> To: Carsten Bormann; Ralph Droms (rdroms); Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > >> Cc: 6lowpan; RFC Editor; 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 > > >> 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 > >>> > > From robert.cragie@gridmerge.com Thu Aug 11 01:41:13 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91E5621F8B0C for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 01:41:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O3qVExTZhH3O for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 01:41:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail78.extendcp.co.uk (mail78.extendcp.co.uk [79.170.40.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 663F021F8B08 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 01:41:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from client-82-26-175-170.pete.adsl.virginmedia.com ([82.26.175.170] helo=[192.168.1.80]) by mail78.extendcp.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1QrQpf-0000qu-GV for 6lowpan@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:41:39 +0100 Message-ID: <4E439622.3050709@gridmerge.com> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:43:14 +0100 From: Robert Cragie Organization: Gridmerge Ltd. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 6lowpan@ietf.org References: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05228480@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <56748029-05E7-4B09-8C50-C9EADD5629A0@tzi.org> <430C1B59-E048-4CC7-9E75-EF4E54D1104F@amsl.com> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3C92@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05465A99@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05465A99@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms040405050102050607060605" X-Authenticated-As: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 08:41:13 -0000 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms040405050102050607060605 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Unfortunately, when a term enters the vernacular, its meaning often gets = misinterpreted (e.g. for 'ZigBee', read '802.15.4'; for '6lowpan stack', = read 'some proprietary stack which uses 6lowpan-hc in there somewhere'). For that reason, I don't think we should get too hung up about what=20 6lowpan is now considered to mean. In other words - let's publish. Robert On 11/08/2011 9:04 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > Hi Megan; > > I do 100% agree with Ralph here. I'd prefer that we make that change > before publish. Apart from that, I'm perfectly happy with the text as i= t > stands. > > Cheers, > > Pascal > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ralph Droms (rdroms) >> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:15 PM >> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) >> Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Megan Ferguson; Carsten Bormann; 6lowpan; > RFC >> Editor; 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 > > 15.txt> >> >> 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". >> >> 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:mferguson@amsl.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 5:02 PM >>>> To: Carsten Bormann; Ralph Droms (rdroms); Pascal Thubert > (pthubert) >>>> Cc: 6lowpan; RFC Editor; 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org >>>> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 >>> >>> 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 > --------------ms040405050102050607060605 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIK0DCC BIowggNyoAMCAQICECf06hH0eobEbp27bqkXBwcwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwbzELMAkGA1UE BhMCU0UxFDASBgNVBAoTC0FkZFRydXN0IEFCMSYwJAYDVQQLEx1BZGRUcnVzdCBFeHRlcm5h bCBUVFAgTmV0d29yazEiMCAGA1UEAxMZQWRkVHJ1c3QgRXh0ZXJuYWwgQ0EgUm9vdDAeFw0w NTA2MDcwODA5MTBaFw0yMDA1MzAxMDQ4MzhaMIGuMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzELMAkGA1UECBMC VVQxFzAVBgNVBAcTDlNhbHQgTGFrZSBDaXR5MR4wHAYDVQQKExVUaGUgVVNFUlRSVVNUIE5l dHdvcmsxITAfBgNVBAsTGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cudXNlcnRydXN0LmNvbTE2MDQGA1UEAxMtVVRO LVVTRVJGaXJzdC1DbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIEVtYWlsMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAsjmFpPJ9q0E7YkY3rs3BYHW8OWX5ShpHornMSMxqmNVN NRm5pELlzkniii8efNIxB8dOtINknS4p1aJkxIW9hVE1eaROaJB7HHqkkqgX8pgV8pPMyaQy lbsMTzC9mKALi+VuG6JG+ni8om+rWV6lL8/K2m2qL+usobNqqrcuZzWLeeEeaYji5kbNoKXq vgvOdjp6Dpvq/NonWz1zHyLmSGHGTPNpsaguG7bUMSAsvIKKjqQOpdeJQ/wWWq8dcdcRWdq6 hw2v+vPhwvCkxWeM1tZUOt4KpLoDd7NlyP0e03RiqhjKaJMeoYV+9Udly/hNVyh00jT/MLbu 9mIwFIws6wIDAQABo4HhMIHeMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFK29mHo0tCb3+sQmVO8DveAky1QaMB0G A1UdDgQWBBSJgmd9xJ0mcABLtFBIfN49rgRufTAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwDwYDVR0TAQH/ BAUwAwEB/zB7BgNVHR8EdDByMDigNqA0hjJodHRwOi8vY3JsLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbS9BZGRU cnVzdEV4dGVybmFsQ0FSb290LmNybDA2oDSgMoYwaHR0cDovL2NybC5jb21vZG8ubmV0L0Fk ZFRydXN0RXh0ZXJuYWxDQVJvb3QuY3JsMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQAZ2IkRbyispgCi 54fBm5AD236hEv0e8+LwAamUVEJrmgnEoG3XkJIEA2Z5Q3H8+G+v23ZF4jcaPd3kWQR4rBz0 g0bzes9bhHIt5UbBuhgRKfPLSXmHPLptBZ2kbWhPrXIUNqi5sf2/z3/wpGqUNVCPz4FtVbHd WTBK322gnGQfSXzvNrv042n0+DmPWq1LhTq3Du3Tzw1EovsEv+QvcI4l+1pUBrPQxLxtjftz Mizpm4QkLdZ/kXpoAlAfDj9N6cz1u2fo3BwuO/xOzf4CjuOoEwqlJkRl6RDyTVKnrtw+ymsy XEFs/vVdoOr/0fqbhlhtPZZH5f4ulQTCAMyOofK7MIIGPjCCBSagAwIBAgIRALZcFI008b3q kGPLKBbwWBIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwga4xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMQswCQYDVQQIEwJVVDEX MBUGA1UEBxMOU2FsdCBMYWtlIENpdHkxHjAcBgNVBAoTFVRoZSBVU0VSVFJVU1QgTmV0d29y azEhMB8GA1UECxMYaHR0cDovL3d3dy51c2VydHJ1c3QuY29tMTYwNAYDVQQDEy1VVE4tVVNF UkZpcnN0LUNsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgRW1haWwwHhcNMTAwODMwMDAwMDAw WhcNMTEwODMwMjM1OTU5WjCB5DE1MDMGA1UECxMsQ29tb2RvIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsgLSBQ RVJTT05BIE5PVCBWQUxJREFURUQxRjBEBgNVBAsTPVRlcm1zIGFuZCBDb25kaXRpb25zIG9m IHVzZTogaHR0cDovL3d3dy5jb21vZG8ubmV0L3JlcG9zaXRvcnkxHzAdBgNVBAsTFihjKTIw MDMgQ29tb2RvIExpbWl0ZWQxFjAUBgNVBAMTDVJvYmVydCBDcmFnaWUxKjAoBgkqhkiG9w0B CQEWG3JvYmVydC5jcmFnaWVAZ3JpZG1lcmdlLmNvbTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEP ADCCAQoCggEBALQCfpvU4Hd5YvAYACEbYRrbYd2HAm4Sz43wHJwynBBkq5GamqO/SYNrg1ut iDsDQqvWnt1cHgZb4N1FFbvLqV84A0f4xc+EtWTZNYn+lfUBIsgR3RNajFEHnsrXnZN6sPdw lObJ1ol4FUWnFPB/A7/liT7G+FmAB+DAc2iTCNjfxOVxhmKShY/b8ZxIkO4fN418cNxHtq1w gm4SRHIv7VJfgseNKQd5u55RHQEmPgN7aiSyIhvAK4H9Pm1msZrklIoSqGpIR0K7gMpVmPRF bWyoPEgAmGYXRwsdvmUkq8W2wCkr9HA5NNL0D74B+RhIus0gfUL6lgnQR/6y9F31eY0CAwEA AaOCAh0wggIZMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFImCZ33EnSZwAEu0UEh83j2uBG59MB0GA1UdDgQWBBRp GoTqjgTJPeVwG/HaXEXWnn/AGDAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCBaAwDAYDVR0TAQH/BAIwADAgBgNV HSUEGTAXBggrBgEFBQcDBAYLKwYBBAGyMQEDBQIwEQYJYIZIAYb4QgEBBAQDAgUgMEYGA1Ud IAQ/MD0wOwYMKwYBBAGyMQECAQEBMCswKQYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHWh0dHBzOi8vc2VjdXJlLmNv bW9kby5uZXQvQ1BTMIGlBgNVHR8EgZ0wgZowTKBKoEiGRmh0dHA6Ly9jcmwuY29tb2RvY2Eu Y29tL1VUTi1VU0VSRmlyc3QtQ2xpZW50QXV0aGVudGljYXRpb25hbmRFbWFpbC5jcmwwSqBI oEaGRGh0dHA6Ly9jcmwuY29tb2RvLm5ldC9VVE4tVVNFUkZpcnN0LUNsaWVudEF1dGhlbnRp Y2F0aW9uYW5kRW1haWwuY3JsMGwGCCsGAQUFBwEBBGAwXjA2BggrBgEFBQcwAoYqaHR0cDov L2NydC5jb21vZG9jYS5jb20vVVROQUFBQ2xpZW50Q0EuY3J0MCQGCCsGAQUFBzABhhhodHRw Oi8vb2NzcC5jb21vZG9jYS5jb20wJgYDVR0RBB8wHYEbcm9iZXJ0LmNyYWdpZUBncmlkbWVy Z2UuY29tMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQA3I0iUCoFSHw/yM7Ra4cdmKkfZirA7N12pCneI VKHrpx4LJImjCEGNinH6G+PDrs632O96zXzaGqq+S2cA3lX5TJ2XdKz3EwPawB6uZf6sHUrW t5NMbwbotDQLTq0gXW6guL4ICyrmb6EdqO5km8UkgWR7lSzm8fxORPg+X41gu33zb6/cv7hV 3gmBbDPh3PVTyGfnAGOyUBSRCvzbrYtkByCMXUfdTdrx7jV1iD0TjxTJe8vJbTv3zjcIcTHG NnR+CZAx+qXTczLc8pL7DtDXokR5zZUuCgPGg/UWgUfBTUB6vibrAtrX9danRwaR61QCu3R6 HSg520a9rfVXa1NqMYIEYDCCBFwCAQEwgcQwga4xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMQswCQYDVQQIEwJV VDEXMBUGA1UEBxMOU2FsdCBMYWtlIENpdHkxHjAcBgNVBAoTFVRoZSBVU0VSVFJVU1QgTmV0 d29yazEhMB8GA1UECxMYaHR0cDovL3d3dy51c2VydHJ1c3QuY29tMTYwNAYDVQQDEy1VVE4t VVNFUkZpcnN0LUNsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgRW1haWwCEQC2XBSNNPG96pBj yygW8FgSMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggJwMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZI hvcNAQkFMQ8XDTExMDgxMTA4NDMxNFowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFN/N3fth4Ny75uqGxNQA f/RCMKpXMF8GCSqGSIb3DQEJDzFSMFAwCwYJYIZIAWUDBAECMAoGCCqGSIb3DQMHMA4GCCqG SIb3DQMCAgIAgDANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBQDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBKDCB1QYJ KwYBBAGCNxAEMYHHMIHEMIGuMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzELMAkGA1UECBMCVVQxFzAVBgNVBAcT DlNhbHQgTGFrZSBDaXR5MR4wHAYDVQQKExVUaGUgVVNFUlRSVVNUIE5ldHdvcmsxITAfBgNV BAsTGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cudXNlcnRydXN0LmNvbTE2MDQGA1UEAxMtVVROLVVTRVJGaXJzdC1D bGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIEVtYWlsAhEAtlwUjTTxveqQY8soFvBYEjCB1wYL KoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxgceggcQwga4xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMQswCQYDVQQIEwJVVDEXMBUGA1UE BxMOU2FsdCBMYWtlIENpdHkxHjAcBgNVBAoTFVRoZSBVU0VSVFJVU1QgTmV0d29yazEhMB8G A1UECxMYaHR0cDovL3d3dy51c2VydHJ1c3QuY29tMTYwNAYDVQQDEy1VVE4tVVNFUkZpcnN0 LUNsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgRW1haWwCEQC2XBSNNPG96pBjyygW8FgSMA0G CSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAD7csj2IMNe3iCg7XqAZrsDqoLmR+C6ad4CeM4BtX8aF8JHSfCGV GH9VKKdk3ARdF2VDwCweuJL33J9sZc+skOrtahCbwLB7YRDSLyfDBw1rQIBucb3Pm6sW/4iU xpcoxOHn+mqMrAQIIqqz2MvhB3pfMjrl6GQZyeFcGYmIoHhCB2hif5TcMDBO1b90jNM/TczI OHotNodujTc67IHdATDaG0ThUGSFYd23j25HI8feOBztvJva4o+zfMWKkvQUY35m6XxYc6E7 7JDzs4XHGQhEQGB57WVn/q+Fk4DKXRIizf49yX8iEQK9sZBJ+7budd5l/5s/rOHEhvKm7+PG iAkAAAAAAAA= --------------ms040405050102050607060605-- From cabo@tzi.org Thu Aug 11 02:36:08 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5D4E21F8AAF for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 02:36:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EHvdVWtY7vv1 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 02:36:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E5A121F8AA9 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 02:36:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7B9aSPS021769; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:36:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.100] (p5489BB08.dip.t-dialin.net [84.137.187.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3E4EB5CC; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:36:28 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05465A92@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:36:26 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05228480@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <56748029-05E7-4B09-8C50-C9EADD5629A0@tzi.org> <430C1B59-E048-4CC7-9E75-EF4E54D1104F@amsl.com> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3C92@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05465A92@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: Megan Ferguson , RFC Editor , 6lowpan <6lowpan@ietf.org>, 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org, "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:36:09 -0000 > 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: In the WG, we agreed about a title for that document. Not about doing a wholesale replacement of the term "6LoWPAN" in all = documents by "IEEE802.15.4-based network". I would expect the outcome for a call for consensus to be different for = the latter. In any case, this is not the kind of change to make at AUTH48. There is = no emergency caused by the usage. Please indicate to the RFC editor that you agree with publishing the = document now. Gruesse, Carsten From roth@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr Thu Aug 11 07:15:41 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 347C121F889D for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 07:15:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 01FYTvD-VQVh for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 07:15:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.u-strasbg.fr (mailhost.u-strasbg.fr [IPv6:2001:660:2402::151]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1C4421F8891 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 07:15:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clarinet.u-strasbg.fr (clarinet.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.91.200]) by mailhost.u-strasbg.fr (8.14.3/jtpda-5.5pre1) with ESMTP id p7BEG6uL035681 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:16:08 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from roth@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clarinet.u-strasbg.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D27A27D5E85 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:16:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from clarinet.u-strasbg.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (clarinet.u-strasbg.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X1VWXoDC09Jf for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:16:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from holonet.u-strasbg.fr (holonet.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.90.188]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: roth) by clarinet.u-strasbg.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C067027D5E72 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:16:05 +0200 (CEST) From: Damien Roth Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:16:05 +0200 Message-Id: <45542DCE-645E-492C-91DE-E30983DCBFF0@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr> To: 6lowpan@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.5 (mailhost.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.200.151]); Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:16:08 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [6lowpan] Question about the neighbor discovery X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 14:15:41 -0000 Hello, I'm a 2nd year PhD student and I'm trying to understand how 6LoWPAN = works and there is some points I still don't understand. During the neighbor discovery process, a host sends a Neighbor = Solicitation message with an ARO and a Source Link-Layer Address option. = Why is the SLLA option mandatory, since the EUI-64 is already contained = in the Address Registration option ? This leads to my second question : in the figure 5 (detailed message = address examples), why does the host use its short MAC address in the = SLLAO rather than its 64 bits MAC address ? Regards, --=20 Damien ROTH - PhD student Strasbourg University, France From pthubert@cisco.com Thu Aug 11 09:01:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FCE721F8BDC for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:01:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.17 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.17 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.429, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4c+kKfcAVgJV for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:01:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 243CF21F8BC5 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:01:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=pthubert@cisco.com; l=1503; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1313078518; x=1314288118; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=xbB3fgN0TFcdeKAcdRAGfDkH/bhRZ3div1lcN4cSWcE=; b=Fg/awx3VnUsie3NzS4fd20uklcLoWaJyQCIha9RKGX4lDcauUXoJ7Q1O 0TmqXtE938XIc3hbM9tju/PEKjzXTktnAZEZij6Umn6+kWLoAsyeNtsB0 uix6hC/HfJK2X5vcf8+6ojpXvfXC7Skh3AUPg6HhGZLXXpNwX+yqRqpTT c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: As8AAC/8Q06Q/khL/2dsb2JhbABBmAKPSXeBQAEBAQEDEgEKEwo/DAQCAQgOAwQBAQsGFwEGAUUJCAEBBBMIGqVMAZ5xhWhfBJgii10 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,357,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="50049354" Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Aug 2011 16:01:55 +0000 Received: from xbh-ams-201.cisco.com (xbh-ams-201.cisco.com [144.254.75.7]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7BG1t2M027939; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:01:55 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-107.cisco.com ([144.254.74.82]) by xbh-ams-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:01:55 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:01:40 +0200 Message-ID: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05465C3C@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 Thread-Index: AcxYCjPtHmaI4LAQRqC6T7eKCpdp9wANVFEw References: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05228480@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <56748029-05E7-4B09-8C50-C9EADD5629A0@tzi.org> <430C1B59-E048-4CC7-9E75-EF4E54D1104F@amsl.com> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3C92@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05465A92@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: "Carsten Bormann" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Aug 2011 16:01:55.0545 (UTC) FILETIME=[FE0E8490:01CC583F] Cc: Megan Ferguson , RFC Editor , 6lowpan <6lowpan@ietf.org>, 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org, "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:01:25 -0000 Carsten,=20 You are the one who started this, and you are the one who delayed our work all that time. So please keep your commands to yourself. Like I said I prefer the change that Ralph indicates as it follows my reading of the consensus. Regardless I was happy with the initial AUTH48 text as I'm happy with that text. Engineering is often about good enough and never about perfection. Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:cabo@tzi.org] > Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 11:36 AM > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Megan Ferguson; 6lowpan; RFC Editor; 6lowpan- > ads@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 15.txt> >=20 > > 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". >=20 > Pascal: In the WG, we agreed about a title for that document. > Not about doing a wholesale replacement of the term "6LoWPAN" in all > documents by "IEEE802.15.4-based network". > I would expect the outcome for a call for consensus to be different for the > latter. > In any case, this is not the kind of change to make at AUTH48. There is no > emergency caused by the usage. >=20 > Please indicate to the RFC editor that you agree with publishing the > document now. >=20 > Gruesse, Carsten From pthubert@cisco.com Thu Aug 11 09:07:27 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2713321F8B30 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:07:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.181 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.181 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.418, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6VAkDUJsSY4S for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:07:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F6D21F8ACE for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:07:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=pthubert@cisco.com; l=6849; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1313078880; x=1314288480; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=pSoDsAHcI9zAOkpTWBOUjx1kGq/BsTMitd8M0j7PSCw=; b=W2WqCJLeEfCYSXOKg6RWditByoFYbWAXHmrCDFdjN5+SwjUlXzD9s0Ld AJyJjYt1HBJpw0fqnckVr82jWcFQ/TXfdkmYvHoGcGpmD5I2+yESApOLr DYuGpUFBGNZiupeeWmDIwKzpUJ+dAKY8aK/tSv01GOZz/+d1QdGKxPsIb Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: As8AAMz9Q06Q/khL/2dsb2JhbABBmAePSXeBQAEBAQEDAQEBDwEdCjQLDAQCAQgOAwQBAQEKBhcBBgEmHwkIAQEEARIIGodRngUBnnGFaF8EmCKLXQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,357,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="110286763" Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Aug 2011 16:07:56 +0000 Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7BG7uiD032259; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:07:56 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-107.cisco.com ([144.254.74.82]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:07:56 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:07:43 +0200 Message-ID: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05465C41@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 Thread-Index: AcxXktMLXD+gaJFXTf+XuKB+5pmU/wArYfkg References: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05228480@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com><56748029-05E7-4B09-8C50-C9EADD5629A0@tzi.org><430C1B59-E048-4CC7-9E75-EF4E54D1104F@amsl.com><6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3C92@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com><1313002234.15378.54.camel@d430><8FD192A3-8CBA-40A5-A93C-01E4BA42E10D@cisco.com> From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: "Ralph Droms" , "Megan Ferguson" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Aug 2011 16:07:56.0377 (UTC) FILETIME=[D5211C90:01CC5840] Cc: 6lowpan 6lowpan <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" , geoff Mulligan , Carsten Bormann , 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org, RFC Editor Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:07:27 -0000 Hi Megan; Same here. I'm not longing for any perfection. I trust an engineer that needs to implement this spec can certainly do it with the current text and I'm happy with it as I was before that episode. As far as I am concerned we are ready to publish. Thanks a huge bunch for your efforts and sorry for all those discussions. Cheers, Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Ralph Droms > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:22 PM > To: Megan Ferguson > Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); RFC Editor; geoff Mulligan; Carsten Bormann; > 6lowpan 6lowpan; 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 15.txt> >=20 > Megan - to be clear, I'm satisfied that the most recent version of the > document is ready to publish... >=20 > - Ralph >=20 > On Aug 10, 2011, at 3:02 PM 8/10/11, Ralph Droms wrote: >=20 > > 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:mferguson@amsl.com] > >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 5:02 PM > >>>>>> To: Carsten Bormann; Ralph Droms (rdroms); Pascal Thubert > (pthubert) > >>>>>> Cc: 6lowpan; RFC Editor; 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 > >>>>> >>>>>> 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 > >> > >> > > >=20 > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > 6lowpan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan From nordmark@acm.org Thu Aug 11 09:33:06 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EE2121F8C67 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:33:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.993 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.993 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.393, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dVQER9Rd33Uu for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:33:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from b.mail.sonic.net (b.mail.sonic.net [64.142.19.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8994E21F8876 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:33:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.33.22.81] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com [128.107.239.233]) (authenticated bits=0) by b.mail.sonic.net (8.13.8.Beta0-Sonic/8.13.7) with ESMTP id p7BGXX5R026125 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:33:34 -0700 Message-ID: <4E44045D.6080903@acm.org> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:33:33 -0700 From: Erik Nordmark User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Damien Roth References: <45542DCE-645E-492C-91DE-E30983DCBFF0@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr> In-Reply-To: <45542DCE-645E-492C-91DE-E30983DCBFF0@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Question about the neighbor discovery X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:33:06 -0000 On 8/11/11 7:16 AM, Damien Roth wrote: > Hello, > > I'm a 2nd year PhD student and I'm trying to understand how 6LoWPAN > works and there is some points I still don't understand. > > During the neighbor discovery process, a host sends a Neighbor > Solicitation message with an ARO and a Source Link-Layer Address > option. Why is the SLLA option mandatory, since the EUI-64 is already > contained in the Address Registration option ? The EUI-64 is an identifier, which uniquely identifies the host whether or not the host is using a 64 bit or 16 bit link-layer address. The SLLA contains the address to which the host wants the router to send packets i.e., a locator. > This leads to my second question : in the figure 5 (detailed message > address examples), why does the host use its short MAC address in the > SLLAO rather than its 64 bits MAC address ? So that the packets the router forward to the host will be delivered with the short addresses in the link-layer header. Erik From cabo@tzi.org Thu Aug 11 09:50:28 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD1D721F8C98 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:50:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.931 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.931 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.318, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LnOH6fCixSdY for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:50:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AA1721F8C97 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:50:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7BGooZ6027484; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:50:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.100] (p5B3E6E73.dip.t-dialin.net [91.62.110.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 050F97F1; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:50:49 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05465C3C@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:50:49 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <50B00110-6B3D-4588-83D5-8920B4241158@tzi.org> References: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05228480@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <56748029-05E7-4B09-8C50-C9EADD5629A0@tzi.org> <430C1B59-E048-4CC7-9E75-EF4E54D1104F@amsl.com> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3C92@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05465A92@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D05465C3C@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: Megan Ferguson , RFC Editor , 6lowpan <6lowpan@ietf.org>, 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org, "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:50:29 -0000 On Aug 11, 2011, at 18:01, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > You are the one who started this No, Pascal, I can't let that stand. *Your* unexplicable, unilateral post-WGLC change of the title started = this. It is one of my jobs as a WG chair to make sure the editors of a WG = document don't run around the WG process result. It didn't help that I didn't have much time in the last couple of months = and didn't pay much attention, so the result was a long delay -- I = should have fixed this earlier and quicker. But in any case, if you want the process to run smoothly, don't play = tricks with it. Gruesse, Carsten From johanna.1.nieminen@nokia.com Fri Aug 26 05:47:28 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5241F21F8B50 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 05:47:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.932 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.334, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vmkY5PKpcHzZ for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 05:47:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgw-sa02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.1.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A1DE21F8B0B for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 05:47:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh101.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.22]) by mgw-sa02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p7QCmZco022417 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 15:48:42 +0300 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.5]) by vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 26 Aug 2011 15:48:26 +0300 Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-006.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.61) by NOK-am1MHUB-01.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.5) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 14:48:16 +0200 Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.3.204]) by 008-AM1MMR1-006.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.61]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 14:48:16 +0200 From: To: <6lowpan@ietf.org> Thread-Topic: Latest version of IPv6 over BT-LE draft Thread-Index: Acxj7bwqMeJce9kfQvayEwuvlbMVbA== Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:48:16 +0000 Message-ID: <5FA713B99ACAA6478C065A155E206B4608E013@008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.21.21.225] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5FA713B99ACAA6478C065A155E206B4608E013008AM1MPN1043mgdn_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Aug 2011 12:48:26.0540 (UTC) FILETIME=[72BF2EC0:01CC63EE] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Subject: [6lowpan] Latest version of IPv6 over BT-LE draft X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:47:28 -0000 --_000_5FA713B99ACAA6478C065A155E206B4608E013008AM1MPN1043mgdn_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Latest version of our draft "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Bluetooth Lo= w Energy" https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle/ has been submitted. We are planning WGLC within a couple of weeks and would= ask you to send any comments before that. Johanna --_000_5FA713B99ACAA6478C065A155E206B4608E013008AM1MPN1043mgdn_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
 
Latest version of our draft “Transmission of IPv6 Packets over B= luetooth Low Energy”
has been submitted. We are planning WGLC within a couple of weeks and = would ask you to send any comments before that.
 
Johann= a
 
 
 
 
 --_000_5FA713B99ACAA6478C065A155E206B4608E013008AM1MPN1043mgdn_--