Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Don Sturek <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > 1) "- I have argued that to increase MPL's applicability,
    > PROACTIVE_FORWARDING should be a per-interface and not a per-forwarder
    > setting.  I can imagine, for example, a router that has both LLN and

I think that the IETF *functional requirements* question is really:
  Can an implementer make it per-interface without having an impact on
  the implementation in other nodes?

If the answer is, there is no impact, then it really doesn't matter.
Other "ip-forwarding" settings have been described as per-router and
generalized into per-interface many times before.

I have added your comments to ticket #103, which I re-opened.
I will close it again today --- I would appreciate comments in the mailing
list as to whether there is anything to fix here.

    > 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."

I have added your text to ticket #132, and re-opened it.
I would like to close it today.

I think that we are not using scope 4 because we are able to automatically
define the edge.  Can you suggest some text would permit MPL to automatically
define the scope based upon the flood of the prefix found in the DIO PIO?
Is that what you had in mind?

    > not needed.  When using FF03::FC (defined for forwarding within a MPL
    > Domain) then all members of the MPL Domain are forwarded a copy of the
    > multicast transmission.  Section 7.2 especially makes this clear, by
    > interface, by defining:

I think that you haven't answer the question, just swapped "Real-Local scope"
for "MPL Domain"

    > 3) - "The DATA_MESSAGE_IMIN and CONTROL_MESSAGE_IMIN parameters
    > described in section 5.5 will ultimately have to be expressed in units
    > of time (either in this document or elsewhere) for a given link-layer
    > in order to avoid the "Mismatched min" issues discussed in [RFC 6206,
    > sect. 6.2].  The same reference states: "a protocol SHOULD set k and
    > Imin such that Imin is at least two to three times as long as it takes
    > to transmit k packets."

I'm suffering from unclosed quotes here.
I don't see section 5.5 as redefining the parameters at all. It seems
to just re-iterate them.  What is the suggested remedy here?

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [



--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works