IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Comments on draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02

Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Mon, 10 February 2014 17:14 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EF3C1A0386 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:14:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p8blv9aJkRg9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:14:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x22d.google.com (mail-la0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7905F1A0322 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:14:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f45.google.com with SMTP id b8so5052584lan.32 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:14:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=h/IdsfwHA+3/LenP0SJiH54LseCWBDcMefaLR8goBB4=; b=qqFf+baxMaUUcg48O3VCbBQTuercmX1MTr1JpzHVDO7Et9iJ8BXAutJJ4GlrXkia77 doeHqlUpjykeYXyM5UrwoKTXmbyGfZ083uKne7OOST1ZaeTlpjk/DG+IakiRjvPESOxw 1lv9vmXo8YIWPD8y7UNWZIwws6IxMgVrSdvyV8bHscNtShCKK+tP6jBWmaQRmusQPFrh 57ykU2INNxVHYG4QNo9Ywsgx7kENU7ktB4JWWNYDjLoSZpeiXeaQ9POoTgrF2NJJ6zuW j6yt9VupNKOC9PR4l0+RIqIv3iy5JpKTCYrKJ8Flrr5AZ29xxXROsdet9oUxCHd5ieAH oG1g==
X-Received: by 10.152.42.196 with SMTP id q4mr2073021lal.52.1392052483664; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:14:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:1bc8:101:f101:9530:4b2c:f90f:fc4e? ([2001:1bc8:101:f101:9530:4b2c:f90f:fc4e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id pz10sm16439738lbb.10.2014.02.10.09.14.39 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:14:39 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02
From: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BD6D3089-6A85-497C-931C-29A7C571A98A@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 19:14:38 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C0EF44F7-93F7-4FD3-86B5-180576545680@gmail.com>
References: <DFE48030-8647-4F96-B38E-E5F6E6CA1635@gmail.com> <BD6D3089-6A85-497C-931C-29A7C571A98A@gmail.com>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes@tools.ietf.org, IPv6 IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 17:14:47 -0000

On Feb 10, 2014, at 6:18 PM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> On Feb 10, 2014, at 5:41 AM 2/10/14, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Sorry for being late with my comments but here we go anyway.
>> 
>> I think this document is almost ready. Few comments/questions
>> though.
>> 
>> ** In Section 3:
>> 
>>  NEW:
>> 
>>    o  The boundaries of zones of a scope are defined by the IPv6
>>       addressing architecture [RFC4291].
>> 
>> Ok.. this is confusing since it is *this* I-D that updates RFC4291
>> with a new Realm-scope aware boundary, thus RFC4291 would eventually
>> point back to this I-D. So while the above change is correct it
>> definitely is confusing.
> 
> How about:
> 
>    o  The boundaries of zones of a scope are defined by the IPv6
>       addressing architecture [RFC4291] and updated by this document.

Wfm.

>> Just like with draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update I see a
>> need for RFC4291bis, where Section 1 like enhancements would
>> belong to rather than stacking up I-Ds that patch things here and
>> there.  Again I recon it might be too late for this, though.
> 
> In my opinion, it would be fine to start on an RFC4291bis now.  I would strongly object to holding up this document for that effort, as the definition of scop 3 is needed now for MPL.
> 
>> 
>> ** Section 5
>> 
>> What would go under the other scopes than 3? Shouldn't we say at
>> least something about the possible future use of those? Will they
>> also list RFCs? 
> 
> RFC 4291 explicitly leaves the other scopes "(unassigned)".  It would be out of scope for this document to say more about those scopes than RFC 4291.

Since this document establishes a new registry, we at least
need to define the guidelines on how future assignments are
to be made as per RFC5226.

> 
>> ** Section 7
>> 
>> I don't think it is sufficient just to refer to RFC4291 (almost non
>> existent) security considerations. For example there should be a
>> reference to RFC4007 which actually has text related to security
>> considerations of boundaries and scopes.
> 
> Good point.  I suggest:
> 
> 7.  Security Considerations
> 
>   This document has no security considerations beyond those in RFC 4007
>   [RFC4007] and RFC 4291 [RFC4291].

Wfm.

- JOuni


> 
> - Ralph
> 
>> 
>> - JOuni
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email