IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes updates RFC 4007 (Was Re: [Roll] [roll] #132: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local)

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Mon, 28 October 2013 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2FDF11E814C; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.222
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-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 QdWl+qb4APO1; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x233.google.com (mail-we0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A153111E8260; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f179.google.com with SMTP id w61so6752092wes.38 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:46:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=TQylOX+RjV8qapGkBxtbp59ua6uTc10LbFEI6ta389c=; b=AaHdt1RwIa6jFqNbP+QfCAXGBJwqe6A40j3x2mGHIKxc684EL9qawnhcoEUn35WEom 86M+3eggxTx9KZXxMwUmW7udnv4Ty8WmYo24oJv2khWg9Tql2eeSb2qQ396r+P7OZ/sU dqHyIKg0Rl8ys6ZyPw+ccJWL9s//2oqvgL7rYLDOHzeZf13cJoqbVfD9R0QAObCFnCQf aD6b3T/CrGV336JRPPpU8tEM8Tgdd7871ySUpqKY0iW9lne/rmw3GdNTUYqt78Jzo8TG nr/B1GrQX/GraXTaumYqYl1hhRb5DtPfVh3ECcbyibszKAKsCxXgBkwQHcd111y5HulZ 22gQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.77.41 with SMTP id p9mr2287263wjw.66.1382978808625; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:46:48 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.120.167 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:46:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA301C06DD6@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com>
References: <3599.1381852752@sandelman.ca> <CE82BA46.24343%d.sturek@att.net> <CABOxzu2nLuny5uySEEdb6ji9ucE6xqGZ6DLe-mc6KUqVszNfFg@mail.gmail.com> <525DC6C9.2010808@gridmerge.com> <CABOxzu2apwBRpU1h4mKJwpO+U+Y9Q_q-h5AhZ+hGzAdjdPdmUQ@mail.gmail.com> <525E5064.4050109@gridmerge.com> <CABOxzu0L-EY0iDGpAJ+ER15CPL-3v8F77ewn-G=gZYODixevZg@mail.gmail.com> <3CC8783F-F4DA-47B9-A051-DBBA6EF00C19@gmail.com> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA301C067D0@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <1daea916972b4e60be575e5f5276cb78@BY2PR03MB269.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA301C06DD6@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:46:48 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: MgmCN6IzTKBpROM0ljIkjsISEaQ
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqcyWMYw4NHS8xMu+JtWQwV8t97Lcf0BzC1Qe0zgmR4aMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes updates RFC 4007 (Was Re: [Roll] [roll] #132: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local)
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
To: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 28 Oct 2013 16:46:54 -0000

At Fri, 25 Oct 2013 20:44:57 +0000,
"Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com> wrote:

> >>   NEW:
> >>
> >>         Interface-Local, Link-Local, and Realm-Local scope boundaries
> >>         are automatically derived from physical connectivity or
> >>         other, non-multicast related configuration.  Global scope has
> >>         no boundary.  The boundaries of all other non-reserved scopes
> >>         are administratively configured.
> >
> > I disagree with the last sentence above.  Specifically
> > "non-reserved" should be removed.  That is, we should not start
> > precluding admin configuration of reserved scopes, given we didn't
> > before.  They just didn't have defined names or uses, but they could
> > have been used within private environments.
>
> Good catch.  So the last sentence should read:
>
>   The boundaries of all other scopes are administratively configured.

First off, whether we include "non-reserved" or not, we should clarify
this only applies to admin-local or larger.  So, e.g.

   The boundaries of all other scopes of Admin-Local or larger are
   administratively configured.

Secondly, I don't think the "NEW" text (necessarily) precludes admin
configuration of reserved scopes (in this context it specifically
means scope 15).  With "non-reserved", I meant it specifically means
scopes # 5-13.  It intended to not say about scope #15, rather than
preclude admin configuration for it.  On the other hand, the suggested
revised version  explicitly states that the boundaries of scope #15
are administratively configured.  I don't know if that's what this
scope was supposed to be.  If it was, then this version is okay.  If
not, and if the "NEW" version was confusing, I suggest:

  The boundaries of all other non-reserved scopes of Admin-Local or
  larger are administratively configured.  For reserved scopes, the
  way of configuring their boundaries will be defined when the
  semantics of the scope is defined.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

v2.34.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status