IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MBONED] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-01.txt

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Wed, 21 March 2012 09:45 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE74321F8616 for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 02:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.189
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.189 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 gLG9CzA8PwYh for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 02:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E4B621F85F7 for <mboned@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 02:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm10.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 847CC264412; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:45:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from puexch91.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.48]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 6B915238048; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:45:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.233.200.25]) by puexch91.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.48]) with mapi; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:45:44 +0100
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>, "mboned@ietf.org" <mboned@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:45:43 +0100
Thread-Topic: [MBONED] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-01.txt
Thread-Index: Ac0G2MCbJ2Y5aNXuSBGHXdI7/ZfA2AAbUutg
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E285585A4@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <20120229100743.10846.76152.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F68E9A0.8050000@venaas.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F68E9A0.8050000@venaas.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.3.21.85414
Subject: Re: [MBONED] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-01.txt
X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group <mboned.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mboned>
List-Post: <mailto:mboned@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:45:46 -0000

Dear Stig,

We presented it in softwire because we have another document in that WG which makes use of this option.

FYI, we presented this draft in softwire last IETF meeting and there was support to adopt it as softwire WG document. A call for adoption confirmation has been also issued in softwire ML (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg03377.html).

There is no doubt we will ask for review, help and inputs from mboned.

Cheers,
Med 

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : mboned-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mboned-bounces@ietf.org] 
>De la part de Stig Venaas
>Envoyé : mardi 20 mars 2012 21:34
>À : mboned@ietf.org
>Objet : Re: [MBONED] I-D Action: 
>draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-01.txt
>
>Now that we have adopted this, the WG should be aware of
>draft-qin-softwire-multicast-prefix-option.
>
>I see this draft will be presented in softwire, but I think it
>should be discussed in mboned too. It is not specific to
>softwire in any way. Not sure why it is presented there.
>
>One consideration I think should be added, is whether there is a
>need to handle different scopes and choosing which v6 scope to
>use for a v4 group...
>
>Stig
>_______________________________________________
>MBONED mailing list
>MBONED@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email