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

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Ralph Droms (rdroms) <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> Ralph Droms (rdroms) <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >>>> I would still like an explanation of why "subnet" is the wrong term.
    >>>>
    >>>> When would scope-3 would be used such that it would not correspond to the set
    >>>> of links on which a "/64" (or other size) is used?
    >>
    >>> Hm, I thought I responded but apparently not...
    >>
    >>> This change to scope 0x03 is not just for MPL, so we don't know how
    >>> else it might be used in the future.
    >>
    >> 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.

What I see you saying is that you want a definition which I find rather
(technically) vague, in anticipation of uses which are not yet well defined,
and may never come to pass.

I'm saying, let's make the MPL scope-3 use case clear and precise, and if
another situation comes along for which scope-3 is appropriate, let's extend
the definition at that time.

Otherwise, this reminds of site-local scope:
  We defined it in what we thought were clear terms for a human, but which
  turned out to be too vague for machines, with the result that it could never
  be discovered/used.

Meanwhile, I think that MPL is hung up waiting for this to be properly
clarified.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works