Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09

james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com> Fri, 05 March 2010 00:44 UTC

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Subject: Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09
From: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <929CA789-3B68-4B60-A623-311D072B4F17@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:41:14 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AA773B57-8CD1-4701-A39A-F2E10DEED35E@apple.com>
References: <D6F5ACD2-EB43-477E-9F48-AC3EDB3F7EB4@apple.com> <0E826480-B510-4907-9F38-6119C0D7523B@cisco.com> <929CA789-3B68-4B60-A623-311D072B4F17@cisco.com>
To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mar 4, 2010, at 15:56, Fred Baker wrote:
> 
> I'm not even sure I understand the recommendation. To be sure, RFC 4291 knows nothing of an "organization-local" scope; what is likely meant here is "site-local".

Page 13 of RFC 4291 assigns the value 8 in the 4-bit scope field to Organization-Local and says this about it in the third-to-the-last paragraph:

	Organization-Local scope is intended to span multiple sites
        belonging to a single organization."

I don't really have a strong opinion on site-local vs. organization-local.  I think it says what it currently does because that's what I wrote in the first draft, and it hasn't been much of an issue until now.

I will say that it doesn't make sense to me that my service provider should be allowed to join my organization-local scope multicast groups, or that I can join their organization-local scope groups.  That's what it would mean if we said 'site-local' here instead of what it currently says.

Do we want to recommend that subscriber networks and provider networks be included in the same organization-local multicast scope by DEFAULT?  What would be the theory behind that decision?

> Last call will not happen before IETF 77.

Okay.  I can live with that.

> Are you *ready* for a last call?

Given that this is the first time I've served as a technical editor on a working group draft, I'm not sure I can answer that with any confidence.  I'll defer to the chairs.

> I would suggest that we have a f2f discussion in Anaheim and decide this then.

Sure.  I'll be in Anaheim.

--
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
member of technical staff, communications engineering

I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Baugher
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Fred Baker
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Fred Baker
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Baugher
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Baugher
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Baugher
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Ole Troan
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Baugher
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Baugher
RE: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 STARK, BARBARA H (ATTLABS)
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Fwd: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 - ICMP… Rémi Després
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 - ICMP … james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 - ICMP … Rémi Després
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Brian E Carpenter
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Smith
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Brian E Carpenter
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Brian E Carpenter
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Fred Baker
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Fred Baker
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Fred Baker
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Shane Amante
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Smith
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Cameron Byrne
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Smith
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Gert Doering
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Brian E Carpenter
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Smith
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Brian E Carpenter
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Status of RFC 4864 (was Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-si… Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Smith
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Ole Troan
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Brian E Carpenter