Re: [Roll] [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Thu, 14 November 2013 09:21 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E445821E812C; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 01:21:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.52
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 V6bVDH-kd7te; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 01:21:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0005E21F9D19; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 01:21:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost.ecs.soton.ac.uk [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rAE9L7sX020089; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:21:07 GMT
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk rAE9L7sX020089
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=201304; t=1384420867; bh=kRMR4jxHbUqtHjEO9N4nWSCrlO8=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=g0cLqsqkzYEAPK0hpVGg1EyzrPdcK5smmlEte8oTSsu+BqUGwWsst/lXlOlrsslY8 iIwv7vaAqY90G1wajHUYDYNp5xFKlADjzOZJY4vZJbZvcSNRo66XqSOPR9KO24/oY5 IY1YUbEYoxDwL37lC+hF35r1k9OGB876mxoxco+U=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id pAD9L70959659825CR ret-id none; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:21:07 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.26] (5ad35a35.bb.sky.com [90.211.90.53] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rAE9KdkI017596 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:20:40 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD841590CC4@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:20:39 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|14ec5fdd57568988316140abbd6b7acbpAD9L703tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|1D6AAC82-2828-402C-BE2B-9A9FF019F397@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <20131112131626.28795.73885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <81B53491-ABF4-4E98-B249-9CC652899B4C@cisco.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD84158AE17@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <9683EB80-69F2-42CC-BD89-1A0CC6398700@cisco.com> <52837CE4.60304@innovationslab.net> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD841590CC4@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <1D6AAC82-2828-402C-BE2B-9A9FF019F397@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=pAD9L7095965982500; tid=pAD9L70959659825CR; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=6:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: rAE9L7sX020089
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Cc: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List" <ipv6@ietf.org>, Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and <roll@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:21:25 -0000

On 14 Nov 2013, at 05:51, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hello Brian:
> 
> 03 seems to derive from autonomic behavior, whereas 04 derives from admin. I do not see there a direct indication that 03 is contained in 04 though in the deployments I have in mind it would certainly be the case. Whether we want to enforce or on the contrary do not want to enforce the nesting is probably something we want to clarify.

Are there use cases documented somewhere in a 6lo or 6lo-related draft?

I'm interested as we're updating the homenet text about multicast scopes.  We have agreed some text in principle with Brian for that, but it's interesting because we may, indeed are likely to, have 6lo networks within future IPv6 home networks.

Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Haberman [mailto:brian@innovationslab.net] 
> Sent: mercredi 13 novembre 2013 07:22
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and; ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List; 6lo@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt
> 
> Pascal,
> 
> On 11/12/13 5:04 PM, Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote:
>> The document has been accepted as a WG work item.  Check out 
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-0
>> 2.txt
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 5:00 PM 11/12/13, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello Ralph:
>>> 
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes-02 does not seem to contains the section you're inlining. The only diff I found was -specific going -local.
>>> As we are at it, would we be ahead of ourselves if that the draft also specifies that a collection of RPL DODAGs of a same instance federated over an isolated backbone (such as a VLAN) in an 04 ?.
>>> 
>>> If I may add, there is kind of an habit that scopes are nested. Seems that we are going away from that assumption and maybe it would be good to have a sentence saying that?
>>> 
> 
> Scopes are still nested.  See RFC 4007.  Are you saying that this document is changing that?
> 
> Regards,
> Brian
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------