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

Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name> Fri, 12 July 2013 00:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ulrich@herberg.name>
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 972E911E81F8 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 sXg1nigY+8xO for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-x230.google.com (mail-ve0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E81B311E81F4 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f176.google.com with SMTP id c13so7756806vea.7 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=iqTgl4ta9tbgFwSiN4yy4ntvcHojQQyJmAcbCPxL+Ug=; b=zIxb2QnaoX8QE5xcNx8GJdcBBrlZPSNKT20IcBWYTzbqWeMJZSlJTHKd67jG4Jajds mMFvrjkxH2UYM3+F1enSbxzR2ugsKcjq8ggGXa0W/k4v1in2qTw4YIfW2dJmWelg8AKe ZWG5rO5gGx8GjwlxQRdcHmPhmar8bC0HT4GeE=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=iqTgl4ta9tbgFwSiN4yy4ntvcHojQQyJmAcbCPxL+Ug=; b=KM/PWBlJhBf2VuVsigSQ508WRdCxO80IxqCJisiSBtwg5pqcMHenNHEeNPOni8dshk 52Lzcw5LRpP2pYzUfEMz8MbSqdauL8VGGwtCUmrApSQqD7xAVs9YBac1lcoxrvB27SR4 B3XImL/eKGQgTfxabUoXNLC9/uUKi6N0DD4UJe1V0ioEG795rGCvJiTJSC3H61YKLKWj CvIzreaBLN4XFEEEH00jVhW+JCNQwIzVjumT86I7m5+HOtxRnOJ0TbEV11fmJ0RHAhSV N5c2tYi1qwo300sjkDaboOZt1fN2u99vfaPrucw8g9mmooyUwgDOps1s72W7Qd0kutlA ndQQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.143.140 with SMTP id v12mr23222377vcu.95.1373589619047; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.221.55.70 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7A5DE71A-3FF4-4AC5-BC85-2C31EB81985F@cisco.com>
References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> <CAK=bVC-f1KzWnNws97Zu=vbvrGeg-s6OWWikWHAi4t_3iN6TLA@mail.gmail.com> <7A5DE71A-3FF4-4AC5-BC85-2C31EB81985F@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:40:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAK=bVC_FSDU4a15j=akvhvWtKyq4Kms_yAMu91RCMtQDcca4LA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
To: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlAvJ8gv/F9RlKOIpWpo9ZVMeu5QCXCRNQNk1OT+0ZsR/WtycfcxQdNpiYbkvdrKJDAVl0H
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local
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: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 00:40:20 -0000

That's what I feared... I think it's an unfortunate decision.

Btw, should that mean that RFC4903 should be obsoleted?

Ulrich


On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Ralph Droms (rdroms) <rdroms@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 11, 2013, at 6:29 PM, "Ulrich Herberg" <ulrich@herberg.name> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Michael Richardson
>> <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The most recent rev of draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes defines scope
>>>> 0x03 as:
>>>
>>>> 3  Network-Specific scope, greater than Link-Local scope, defined
>>>> automatically from the network topology
>>>
>>>> To be confirmed: will this definition suffice for MPL?
>>>
>>> I think it is sufficient, because we understand what it means.
>>> I am concerned about the word "Network"... which could mean anything to anyone.
>>>
>>> I'd think that the right word would be "subnet", because the intent is that
>>> it is for the entire /64 or whatever it is that one is using.  I think that
>>> is the term that is used in RFC4291.
>>
>>
>> I think that having a network-wide, multi-link subnet is a bad idea:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4903
>
> That decision has already been made and is carried through many protocols..
>
> - Ralph
>
>>
>> Regards
>> Ulrich