Re: [Roll] trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local

[JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

At Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:46:45 +0000,
"Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> >>> I understand, but perhaps it would be better, if, when another use case comes
> >>> along, they write a document explaining why scope-3 is correct and
> >>> non-conflicting with the trickle mcast use case.
> > 
> >> I don't agree; in my opinion, it's better to release scope 0x03 from
> >> "reserved" state and give guidelines for its use.
> > 
> > I think that we agree about what we want.
> 
> Sorry, I disagree.  I simply want to release the scope from "(reserved)" state and write down whatever constraints needed for consistency with other scopes.
> 
> Jinmei-san (if I may make an inference from his e-mail) supports writing this definition into  and made the helpful suggestion to add the MPL use case as an example, which I support.

I didn't have a strong opinion about which one is better:
A: keep the definition of scope-3 generic (+ possibly show the MPL
   case as an example), or
B: limit the definition to the MPL case for now (+ possibly extend it
   in future as we find more specific cases)

My comment was that assuming the choice of keeping it generic is
given, it would still be helpful if we give a specific example case.

But, on thinking about it now, I think I have a leaning to approach A,
because the concept of address scope itself is generic while the MPL
case seems too specific.  And, as long as the 6man-multicast-scopes
document shows a specific example (so the definition won't be too
vague) and states future cases should be defined in separate RFCs (as
it does in the first sentence of Section 2 of the 00 version), it
seems to address the concerns that approach B would try to address.

Still not a strong opinion anyway, though.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya