On Jul 24, 2013, at 6:26 PM 7/24/13, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. Sounds like a good suggestion to me. I have no objection to adding such text, if there is WG consensus for the change... - Ralph > > -- > JINMEI, Tatuya -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
