Re: [Roll] Fwd: Re: WG Last Call draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-02

[peter van der Stok <[e-mail]>]

Hi Don,

and more specifically under which conditions. That gives the 
possibility to choose the conditions such that the encapsulation is not 
needed.

Don Sturek schreef op 2012-10-29 16:56:
> Hi Peter,
>
> I think your suggested changes to the Trickle Multicast draft point 
> out
> why IP in IP tunneling is needed.
>
> Don
>
>
>
> On 10/29/12 3:44 AM, "peter van der Stok" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Dear WG,
>>
>>
>>Attached my suggestions for text modifications including some nits. I
>>used the facilities of word to edit and comment text with traces.
>>
>>When writing text about MC scope and MC domain, I was puzzled by the
>>all MPL forwarders multicast address which removes the possibility to
>>address a given multicast group. We expect multiple (possibly 
>> disjunct)
>>MC groups in our wireless networks.
>>Also I failed to understand why encapsulation was necessary once the
>>message was received by the seed.
>>To make it possible to configure the interface with one MC scope I
>>added the possibility to use Unicast-Prefix-based IPv6 Multicast
>>Addresses (RFC 3306).
>>
>>
>>Probably, I overlooked many aspects which make the suggestions
>>impractical, but I hope that the intention is clear.
>>
>>Peter van der Stok
>>
>>Michael Richardson schreef op 2012-10-25 23:30:
>>> I suggest that you propose specific text to the list to modify the
>>> document.
>>_______________________________________________
>>Roll mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll