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

Hi,

On 15 Nov 2013, at 00:12, Samita Chakrabarti <samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi Tim,
> 
>> 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.
> 
> [SC>] AFAIK,  6lo/6lowpan basic documents do not discuss the multicast scopes in details. 
> [SC>] It'll be certainly helpful to document the scopes of 6lo within the scope of home networks or equivalent.
> In addition I think, it'd be really helpful for implementers if we provide some examples of scopes of different protocols in the 6man-multicast-scopes doc along with the pointer to RFC 4007.

That would be excellent.  A separate document targeted at homenet WG showing multicast scenarios might be nice, but perhaps overkill.

Tim

> 
> Thanks,
> -Samita
> 
> 
>> -----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
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------