[ssm] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: draft-ietf-ssm-arch-01, wg last call deadline 12/9/2002

[Hugh Holbrook <[e-mail]>]

Pavlin asked me to relay this message to the list for the record.
This message originally bounced.
-Hugh
------- Forwarded Message -------
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: draft-ietf-ssm-arch-01, wg last call deadline 12/9/2002 
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:28:14 -0800
From: Pavlin Radoslavov <[e-mail]>

> Yikes.  I made a typo in the destination address when I responded to
> Pavlin's mail, so this never went out to the list.

I think I already received this email through the list, but I am not
sure.

In any case, I am happy with the changes, so I don't have any other
comments.

Thanks,
Pavlin

> 
> -Hugh
> 
> ------- Forwarded Message -------
> From: Hugh Holbrook <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail],
> 	[e-mail], [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: draft-ietf-ssm-arch-01, wg last call deadline 12/9/2002 
> Reply-To: [e-mail]
> Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
> Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:25:57 -0500 (EST)
> 
> Thanks for the detailed comments, Pavlin.
> 
> Responses to your non-IPv6 related comments are inline.  I'll follow
> up separately with responses to your IPv6 comments.
> 
> -Hugh
> 
> > ------- Forwarded Message -------
> > Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ssm-arch-01, wg last call deadline 12/9/2002 
> > Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:52:13 -0800
> > From: Pavlin Radoslavov <[e-mail]>
> >
> > > There is a new revision of the SSM architecture draft in the ID
> > > archives:
> > > 
> > >       draft-ietf-ssm-arch-01.txt
> > > 
> > > Please consider this email as notice of an SSM working group last call
> > > for comments on this document.  Send comments by 12/9/2002.
> > 
> > Several comments (in no particular order):
> > 
> >  * You may want to check the I-D against the nits in
> >    http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html
> >    E.g, don't use citations in the Abstract.
> 
> Thanks. I did that.  In addition to the citations that you pointed
> out, I added Copyright and IPR sections and changed the example IPv4
> addresses to conform to rfc3330 (use 192.0.2.*)
> 
> >  * Should the draft include a recommendation that if a host is
> >    updated to support SSM, then ASM (*,G) join request by an
> >    application for a multicast group that fails within the SSM range
> >    should return an error?
> 
> I think this is a good suggestion.  Brian and I also discussed
> something like this in the context of the IGMPv3/MLDv2 draft.  When we
> originally wrote the -arch draft, it was not clear how a host would
> really know the SSM address range (other than by configuration).  Now,
> there is the (proposed) MRD option for the SSM range advertisement,
> and we've put in text about possible manual configuration also.  So I
> think it would make sense to specify this.
> 
> How about adding the following text to the second to last paragraph of
> 4.1 (the one that mentions the MSFAPI) as follows:
> 
>   When a host has been configured to know the SSM address range, either
>   manually or using a protocol, then the host's operating system SHOULD
>   return an error to an application that makes a non-source-specific
>   request to receive data sent to an SSM destination address.
>   
> I'm interested in hearing opinions on this from the list.
> 
> >  * After enumerating the benefits of the SSM model in Section 1,
> >    what about enumerating its limitations/drawbacks? :)
> 
> Fair enough.  I'll come up with something.
> 
> >  * Reference [IANA-ALLOCATION] should point to
> >    http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses
> 
> Done.
> 
> >  * Use consistent notation for the IPv6 hex addresses. E.g., the
> >    draft has addresses like FF3x::7fff:ffff which mixes capital with
> >    small letters.
> 
> Done
> 
> > Thanks,
> > Pavlin
> > 
> 


_______________________________________________
Ssm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm