Re: [Roll] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-admin-local-policy-03: (with COMMENT)

Hi Spencer,

Actually I don't know whether it is the right terminology here.
It is used in algorithm proving texts, that I was used to.

The terms seem clear, and I will keep them for the moment,

thanks,

Peter

Spencer Dawkins schreef op 2015-02-19 05:51:
> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-roll-admin-local-policy-03: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to 
> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-admin-local-policy/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> One question: In this text:
> 
> 4.1.  Legal multicast messages
> 
>    Multicast messages can be created within the node by an application
>    or can arrive at an interface.
> 
>    A multicast message created at a source (MPL seed) is legal when it
>    conforms to the properties described in section 9.1 of
>    [I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast].
> 
>    A multicast message received at a given interface is legal when:
> 
>    o  The message carries an MPL option (MPL message) and the incoming
>       MPL interface is subscribed to the destination multicast address.
> 
>    o  The message does not carry an MPL option, the multicast address 
> is
>       unequal to ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS scope 4 or scope 3, and the
>       interface has expressed interest to receive messages with the
>       specified multicast address via MLD [RFC3810] or via IGMP
>       [RFC3376].  The message was sent on according to PIM-DM [RFC3973]
>       or according to PIM-SM [RFC4601].
> 
>    Illegal multicast messages are discarded.
> 
> 4.2.  Forwarding legal packets
> 
>    A legal multicast message received at a given interface is assigned
>    the network identifier of the interface of the incoming link . A
>    message that is created within the node is assigned the network
>    identifier "any".
> 
>    Two types of legal multicast messages are considered: (1) MPL
>    messages, and (2) multicast messages which do not carry the MPL
>    option.
> 
> Is "legal/illegal" the right terminology for this?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll