Re: [Roll] [Gen-art] review: draft-ietf-roll-admin-local-policy-03 (was -02)

Joel Halpern <> Thu, 12 February 2015 23:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 587661A1A1E; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:37:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lZ6KRDMKccq7; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:37:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E54D31A00D8; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:37:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B198A1C059F; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:37:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A81261C0497; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:37:55 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 18:37:41 -0500
From: Joel Halpern <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To:,, IETF discussion list <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [Gen-art] review: draft-ietf-roll-admin-local-policy-03 (was -02)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:37:58 -0000

This is a re-review of -03 of this document.

While I find it slightly odd, upon consideration I believe the statement 
that turning this protocol on is the administrative control required by 
the definition of admin-local scope is sufficient, and thus addresses my 
original concern.

If for some reason this needs to be revised further, I would like to see 
an explicit statement that this behavior (scope-4 announcing and 
forwarding) MUST by default be turned.  That would seem aligned with the 
declaration that turning this behavior on is the administrative action.

Otherwise, this document is now ready for publication as an 
Informational RFC.

Document: draft-ietf-roll-admin-local-policy-03
      MPL forwarder policy for multicast with admin-local scope
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 12-Feb-2015
IETF LC End Date: done
IESG Telechat date: 19-Feb-2015

Joel M. Halpern