Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4443 (6153)

[神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

At Fri, 23 Oct 2020 00:00:38 +0300,
Töma Gavrichenkov <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > I don't have a strong opinion on whether to approve the erratum, but
> > if we do so, I'd keep this part of the original text: "This condition
> > can occur only when the scope of the source address is smaller than
> > the scope of the destination address
>
> This particular phrase is actually incorrect.  Scope zone is not
> scope, and per 4007 zones, not scopes, should be considered.

RFC 4007 also defines the "size" of the concept of scopes:

   There is a size relationship among scopes:

   o  For unicast scopes, link-local is a smaller scope than global.

   o  For multicast scopes, scopes with lesser values in the "scop"
      subfield of the multicast address (Section 2.7 of [1]) are smaller
      than scopes with greater values, with interface-local being the
      smallest and global being the largest.

The text in RFC4443 I sited perfectly makes sense to me in this
regard.

In any case, whether we compare "scopes" or "scope zones", my point is
that the note of this text is useful and IMO its sense should be kept.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya