Re: [Roll] [roll] #132: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local

[Kerry Lynn <[e-mail]>]

Actually, that was my comment.  It seems to me that the MPL draft and
draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes-02 may be inconsistent in whether
Realm-Local scopes are administratively or automatically defined.

-K-



On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 9:46 AM, roll issue tracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> #132: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 -
> subnet-local
>
> Changes (by [e-mail]):
>
>  * status:  closed => reopened
>  * resolution:  fixed =>
>
>
> Comment:
>
>  Don Sturek writes:
>  {{{
>  2)  "- Section 4.1 states: "When used with MPL, Realm-Local scope is
>  administratively
>    defined and used to define the boundaries of multicast message
>  dissemination
>    by MPL."  This begs the question, why don't we just use scope = 0x04?
>  We
>    probably need more discussion on if and how a scope 0x03 zone boundary
>    is automatically defined (i.e. without human intervention) and how
>  forwarding
>    works for scope 0x03.  One suggested definition is that Realm-Local
>  applies
>    to links where a single interface may belong to multiple Link-Local
>  scopes."
>  }}}
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------+------------------------------
>  Reporter:  [e-mail]  |       Owner:  [e-mail]
>      Type:  defect                     |      Status:  reopened
>  Priority:  major                      |   Milestone:
> Component:  trickle-mcast              |     Version:
>  Severity:  In WG Last Call            |  Resolution:
>  Keywords:                             |
> ---------------------------------------+------------------------------
>
> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/132#comment:5>
> roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>