>>>>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:49:12 +0100,
>>>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I have reviewed <draft-ietf-ipv6-scoping-arch-00.txt> and have the
> following two comments:
Thanks for the comments, and sorry for not responding sooner.
> a) I think it would be helpful if the document would refer to
> <draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-01.txt> in places where it
> explains why it does not cover site-local unicast addresses.
I agree.
> b) I have a more serious issue with the default zone. The text says in
> several places that the zone index zero might be used to indicate
> the default zone but it explicitely allows to use other values. In
> section six, it says:
> Similarly, an implementation may choose an index value other
> than zero to represent the default zone.
> I am not sure why this is helpful. Is there a particular reason why
> we can not just say that the default zone is indicated by a zone
> index which MUST (or SHOULD if we have to compromise) be zero?
Hmm, from a quick re-read of the draft, I don't see a particular
reason for not using a stronger word. Perhaps the intention was the
choice is purely local to the node. Even so, if using a specific
requirement helps the MIB work, I think it is reasonable to use a
strong word. So, could you tell me the MIB document that can be
clearer if we use MUST or SHOULD to specify the default zone ID?
Thanks,
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
