I disagree as well that there's a "majority" (or any sort of consensus) for A,
and it would in fact be my last choice of the four possibilities (counting
implementation
dependent).
I would prefer (in order):
C (flexible)
implementation dependent (what you suggest below)
B (strict)
A (flat)
-Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wed 08/08/2001 15:15
To: Robert Elz
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Wrap up and last call: sin6_scope_id semantics
>>>>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2001 00:36:16 +0700,
>>>>> Robert Elz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> | The majority is those who support A.
> Actually, it wasn't, you had 4 supporting A, and 4 not supporting A.
> A might have more support than either of the others, but not majority
> support...
You could say that, but I believe B and C should be separate.
Actually,
- Francis (who supports B) said he said he'd rather prefer A to C,
because C would introduce too much complexity.
- Markku (or Dave? anyway who supports C) said he'd rather prefer A to
B, because we'd not see much benefit to separate the field
(i.e. 4+28) if we get rid of the flexibility that C provided.
> I'm not sure I know or care enough about this to offer an opinion, but
> I would like to ask a question ....
> | A) Using the "flat 32", the zone indices are as follows:
> |
> | ID(intf1) = 1, ID(intf2) = 2, ..., ID(intf5) = 5
> | ID(link1) = 1, ID(link2) = 2, ..., ID(link4) = 4
> | ID(site1) = 1, ID(site2) = 2
> Would another variation of that approach result in ID(site2) == 5
> and ID(link4) == 5 ?
Yes, it would.
> That is to avoid the problem where "1" means one place in one context
> and somewhere totally different in another. Instead "2" in link context
> would mean a particular link, in site context it would mean a collection
> of links, but the link "2" would certainly be one of them.
> With things defined that way, I think A would suit me just fine
> (not that I'd count my opinion on this issue), without it, I think
> I'd prefer B or C, just so the ambiguity is avoided.
Hmm, I guess it would be okay to leave it as implementation dependent,
that is, "we adopt the flat 32 model, but the actual mapping from a
particular zone to a zone ID (sin6_scope_id) is implementation
dependent." Does this make sense to you?
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
