Subject: Re: poposed changes to the scoping architecture draft

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 11:04:19 +0900

>>>>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 19:05:14 +0900, 
>>>>> JINMEI Tatuya <[email-masked]> said:

>> How the unspecified address is treated by the forwarding code is orthogonal
>> to how applications make use of it to specify which connections or datagrams
>> are received on a socket.

> Okay, and I think this also means we should separate architecture (or
> protocol) issues and API issues more clearly.  So, I'd propose:

>   in the architecture draft, clarify that the form of
>   <address>%<zone ID> is intended to be used for disambiguating scoped
>   addresses (that have ambiguity) and that the format should not be
>   used for global addresses or addresses that do not have scope (i.e.,
>   ::).
    
>   (but this does not mean it prohibits an implementation -particularly
>    an API- from using the format for global addresses or for :: in an
>    implementation dependent manner.)

(snip)

> Does this make sense to you?

The list has been too quiet to make a decision (perhaps just due to
holidays?), but I'm going to revise the draft this week, along with
the proposal above.

If anyone of you have a strong objection, please speak up now.

Thanks,

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------