Re: comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-scoping-arch-00.txt

On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 03:37:47PM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / ?$B?@L@C#:H wrote:
> 
> >    I am not sure why this is helpful. Is there a particular reason why
> >    we can not just say that the default zone is indicated by a zone
> >    index which MUST (or SHOULD if we have to compromise) be zero?
> 
> Hmm, from a quick re-read of the draft, I don't see a particular
> reason for not using a stronger word.  Perhaps the intention was the
> choice is purely local to the node.  Even so, if using a specific
> requirement helps the MIB work, I think it is reasonable to use a
> strong word.  So, could you tell me the MIB document that can be
> clearer if we use MUST or SHOULD to specify the default zone ID?

The document in question is <draft-ietf-ops-rfc3291bis-01.txt> and
it says in several places that 0 refers to the default zone. It would
be nice if the scoping architecture could actually back this up by at
least saying the default zone SHOULD be identified by the zone index 0.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------