Subject: comments on draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes-00.txt

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 17:21:10 -0700

I have a couple of comments on the draft:

- I think the draft explains the motivation of introducing the new
  scope.  It will also help understand the vague term of the
  "Network-Specific" scope, or "defined automatically from the network
  topology".  I've checked the ML archive and understood it's related
  to http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04
  But I suspect it's quite difficult to figure it out just from the
  generic description of the draft.
- You might want to explicitly note that this new scope is smaller
  than the Admin (or Site or Organization) -Local scope and that if
  the administrator configures an Admin/Site/Organization-Local scope
  zone for a network, that zone must not be separated by a
  Network-Specific scope zone per the scoped address architecture (RFC
  4007).  This restriction is not specific to this particular
  relationship, but since the Network-Specific scope (seems) dynamic
  and self defined while Admin/Site/Organization-Local scopes are
  always defined manually, I guess it'll be more likely to cause
  accidental violation.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya
Infoblox Inc.

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:19:15 +0200

Jinmei-san - thanks for your review...

>  generic description of the draft.

The lack of direct connection between draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast and this document is intentional.  The purpose of the definition of Network-Specific scope is to allow the use of that scope by draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast, as well as other use cases.

>  always defined manually, I guess it'll be more likely to cause

Agreed.  I'll add some explanatory text to the next rev.

- Ralph

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:26:08 -0700

At Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:19:15 +0200,

> > - I think the draft explains the motivation of introducing the new

(I meant "the draft should explain...")

> The lack of direct connection between draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast
> and this document is intentional.  The purpose of the definition of
> Network-Specific scope is to allow the use of that scope by
> draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast, as well as other use cases.

I see you want to keep the scope document not too specific.  But in
its current form, the concept of "network specific" is too vague and
I'm afraid it's reader-unfriendly (in fact I couldn't understand the
idea just from this draft and ended up digging into the ML archive).
I don't think it too restrictive if we show one specific example of
the intended usage with a note that reads "but the use of this scope
is not limited to this case; in terms of the scope definition it can
be used for any other usage as long as it meets other architectural
constraints".

But I wouldn't strongly argue for that.  It's just a suggestion.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:39:06 +0200

> But I wouldn't strongly argue for that.  It's just a suggestion.

Sounds like a good suggestion to me.  I have no objection to adding such text, if there is WG consensus for the change...

- Ralph

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:46:28 +0100

> Sounds like a good suggestion to me.  I have no objection to adding such text, if there is WG consensus for the change...

I think the suggested change would enhance the text.

Tim

> 
> - Ralph
> 
>> 
>> --
>> JINMEI, Tatuya
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------