At Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:19:15 +0200, Ralph Droms <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I have a couple of comments on the draft: > > > > - I think the draft explains the motivation of introducing the new (I meant "the draft should explain...") > > 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. 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
