Subject: [6tsch] [IMPORTANT] issues with the name 6TSCH

From: Thomas Watteyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 16:04:47 -0700

All,

We had a vote in February on in the ML to pick a name, and the group chose
"6TSCH" because (1) 6 appears early in the alphabet and (2) TSCH clearly
identifies the TSCH mode of IEEE802.15.4e.

Concerns about this acronym were raised in Berlin, first about
pronunciation difficulties, then about a potential naming collision. While
initially people proposed some alternative names, during last week, the ML
leaned toward keeping the name 6TSCH. We discussed this on the call last
Friday, and ended with a rough consensus. Pascal and myself then spent a
couple of days discussing this with several people at the IETF.

The conclusion is that this potential naming collision is not taken lightly
by the IETF. The possibility that a name might be interpreted as offensive,
in particular when pronounced as "6-tush", is something we absolutely want
to avoid, in particular in the light of the recent PyCon fiasco. The group
is therefore asked to pick a different name.

Having been part of the selection of the name "6TSCH", I know that we had
no idea "6TSCH" could be mis-pronounced. I also understand that we have
advertised and used the name "6TSCH" for the last couple of months, and
that we got attached to it. Yet, if there is a chance of misinterpretation,
we should change it now rather than later.

This means that we get to pick another name. We are looking for a name that
can be read and pronounced easily and unambiguously regardless of the
native language. The following names were discussed:
- sixtus (IPv6 over Time-Slotted Channel Hopping)
- 6TiSCH (IPv6 over Time-Slotted Channel Hopping)
- 6TiCS (IPv6 over Time-slotted Channel hopping Slots)
- 6TiC (IPv6 over Time-slotted Channel hopping )
- 6TiS (Time slotted Synchronized)
- 6chants (IPv6 over Channel Hopping ANd Time Sliced links)
- WiNOT (Wireless Networks for Operational Technology)

I opened a poll at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SJDXKQF.

Please take minute to respond with your ordered preference so we can
conduct a Condorcet vote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method; in
case of ambiguity, we'll use ranked pair and the winner will be announced
during the next call.

Pascal & Thomas

---

From: "Timothy J. Salo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 19:25:09 -0500

A few comments on names:

> TSCH clearly identifies the TSCH mode of IEEE802.15.4e.

This is the IETF.  I don't think that "TSCH" currently has much meaning
beyond the handful of people on this list and a few other people in
the standards community.  I think our name ought to speak to a wider
audience

OK, maybe "TSCH" is marginally useful for search engine optimization
(i.e., helping people who Google "TSCH" find the working group).  But,
I don't think that is a very good motivation.

> - 6TiS (Time slotted Synchronized)

I would call this 6TiS (IPv6 over Time-Slotted [MAC] protocols).  The
"Synchronized" seems superfluous to me, but perhaps I'm missing
something.

I would also like to see working group give a bit of consideration to
non-channel-hopping time-slotted protocols.  My particular interest is
narrowband very high frequency (VHF) and ultra-high frequency (UHF)
RF channels, where a time-slotted MAC protocol is potentially
beneficial, but where channel hopping usually isn't an option. No,
I don't think that non-channel-hopping time-slotted protocols ought
to be a current work item at this point, but it would be nice if
the protocols developed by the working group could easily be extended
to single-channel operation (or may two-channel operation, where the
access point transmits on one channel and receives on another channel).

> - 6chants (IPv6 over Channel Hopping ANd Time Sliced links)

Operating systems already use "time sliced"; I think we want to use
the term "time slotted".

> - WiNOT (Wireless Networks for Operational Technology)

Cute, but content free...

-tjs

---

From: Thomas Watteyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 17:33:04 -0700

Timothy,

Great feedback. As you point out, it is too early to start talking about
extending this work to MAC techniques other than TSCH. That being said, I
certainly agree that it would be good to not "lock" to a particular MAC. To
answer your concerns, I believe a single/dual channel TS network can be
equivalent to a TSCH network with all but 1 or 2 channels blacklisted. So
it should be fairly simple to adapt.

Please make sure to vote for your preferred acronym.

Thomas

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Timothy J. Salo <[email-masked]> wrote:

> ______________________________**_________________
> 6tsch mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/6tsch<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch>
>

---

From: "Timothy J. Salo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 20:05:22 -0500

> ... it would be good to not "lock" to a particular MAC.

This is my objection to names that try to include "TSCH".

No, I don't think that this is the time or the place to try to develop
a general protocol to manage time-slotted MAC protocols.  But, I would
like us to occasionally recognize the benefits of a general solution, if
someone (probably someone else) could develop it.

> ...I believe a single/dual channel TS network
> can be equivalent to a TSCH network with all but 1 or 2 channels
> blacklisted. So it should be fairly simple to adapt.

I believe that this is probably the case.  But, I haven't read the
specifications and documents.  Maybe by Vancouver...

-tjs

---

From: Rene Struik <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:58:37 -0400

Why not simply hyphenating things: 6-T-S-C-H? (it even suggest a 
multi-hop network :) )

On 8/13/2013 7:04 PM, Thomas Watteyne wrote:
> All,
>
> We had a vote in February on in the ML to pick a name, and the group 
> chose "6TSCH" because (1) 6 appears early in the alphabet and (2) TSCH 
> clearly identifies the TSCH mode of IEEE802.15.4e.
>
> pronunciation difficulties, then about a potential naming collision. 
> While initially people proposed some alternative names, during last 
> week, the ML leaned toward keeping the name 6TSCH. We discussed this 
> on the call last Friday, and ended with a rough consensus. Pascal and 
> myself then spent a couple of days discussing this with several people 
> at the IETF.
>
> The conclusion is that this potential naming collision is not taken 
> lightly by the IETF. The possibility that a name might be interpreted 
> as offensive, in particular when pronounced as "6-tush", is something 
> we absolutely want to avoid, in particular in the light of the recent 
> PyCon fiasco. The group is therefore asked to pick a different name.
>
> Having been part of the selection of the name "6TSCH", I know that we 
> had no idea "6TSCH" could be mis-pronounced. I also understand that we 
> have advertised and used the name "6TSCH" for the last couple of 
> months, and that we got attached to it. Yet, if there is a chance of 
> misinterpretation, we should change it now rather than later.
>
> This means that we get to pick another name. We are looking for a name 
> that can be read and pronounced easily and unambiguously regardless of 
> the native language. The following names were discussed:
> conduct a Condorcet vote 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method; in case of ambiguity, 
> we'll use ranked pair and the winner will be announced during the next 
> call.
>
> Pascal & Thomas
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6tsch mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch

-- 
email: [email-masked] | Skype: rstruik
cell: +1 (647) 867-5658 | US: +1 (415) 690-7363