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

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Wed, 13 November 2013 13:21 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
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 2284221E8135; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 05:21:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 LTyVPhKRqLlZ; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 05:21:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEA5A21E8117; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 05:21:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 408C788108; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 05:21:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 10252612.rudm1.ra.johnshopkins.edu (addr16212925014.ippl.jhmi.edu [162.129.250.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 927B9136812E; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 05:21:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52837CE4.60304@innovationslab.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 08:21:40 -0500
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <9683EB80-69F2-42CC-BD89-1A0CC6398700@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="uBgo3DoqdwFTkShpEAgpPlmfCXRBXSnSL"
Cc: Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and <roll@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List" <ipv6@ietf.org>, "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" <rdroms@cisco.com>
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: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:21:55 -0000

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-02.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