Jinmei-san - thanks for your review...
On Jul 24, 2013, at 2:21 AM, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. 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. > - 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. Agreed. I'll add some explanatory text to the next rev. - Ralph > > -- > JINMEI, Tatuya > Infoblox Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
