Re: [Roll] draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes updates RFC 4007 (Was Re: [roll] #132: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local)

[神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

At Wed, 23 Oct 2013 17:38:07 -0400,
Kerry Lynn <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > as follows:
> >
> >          Admin-Local scope is the smallest scope that must be
> >          administratively configured, i.e., not automatically derived
> >          from physical connectivity or other, non-multicast-related
> >          configuration.  For all non-reserved scopes except the global
> >          scope, the zone boundaries must also be administratively
> >          configured.
> >
> > I think this statement is self-contradictory.  When automatic
> configuration is
> discussed, it is in relation to zone boundaries.  Here's an attempt to

I'm not sure how it's self contradictory, but there was one clear
error: I meant "For all non-reserved scopes larger than admin-local
scope except the global scope".  But in any case,

> explain
> this without negations:
>
>     Interface-Local, Link-Local, and Realm-Local scope boundaries are
> automatically
>     derived from physical connectivity or other, non-multicast related
> configuration.
>     Global scope has no boundary.  The boundaries of all other non-reserved
> scopes
>     are administratively configured.

This one works for me, and, I actually don't have a strong opinion of
the wording or where to state it.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya