Subject: comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-scoping-arch-00.txt

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:49:12 +0100

I have reviewed <draft-ietf-ipv6-scoping-arch-00.txt> and have the
following two comments:

a) I think it would be helpful if the document would refer to
   <draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-01.txt> in places where it
   explains why it does not cover site-local unicast addresses.

b) I have a more serious issue with the default zone. The text says in
   several places that the zone index zero might be used to indicate
   the default zone but it explicitely allows to use other values. In
   section six, it says:

      Similarly, an implementation may choose an index value other
      than zero to represent the default zone.

   I am not sure why this is helpful. Is there a particular reason why
   we can not just say that the default zone is indicated by a zone
   index which MUST (or SHOULD if we have to compromise) be zero?

   Note that I am editing some textual conventions for MIBs where the
   language in place right now is much clearer that zero means default
   zone. This means that an implementation which chooses a different
   value to denote the default would have to translate this value for
   the MIB interface, which really seems awkward. Hence, I would
   prefer if the scoping architecture document could be more precise
   here.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------