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

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 15:37:47 +0900

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

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

Thanks for the comments, and sorry for not responding sooner.

> 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.

I agree.

> 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?

Hmm, from a quick re-read of the draft, I don't see a particular
reason for not using a stronger word.  Perhaps the intention was the
choice is purely local to the node.  Even so, if using a specific
requirement helps the MIB work, I think it is reasonable to use a
strong word.  So, could you tell me the MIB document that can be
clearer if we use MUST or SHOULD to specify the default zone ID?

Thanks,

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]

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

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 14:00:28 +0100

> clearer if we use MUST or SHOULD to specify the default zone ID?

The document in question is <draft-ietf-ops-rfc3291bis-01.txt> and
it says in several places that 0 refers to the default zone. It would
be nice if the scoping architecture could actually back this up by at
least saying the default zone SHOULD be identified by the zone index 0.

/js

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

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 08:14:57 -0500

I agree with Juergen's suggestion as well.  The scoped addr arch
should mandate the use of 0 as the default zone ID.

Brian