Hi,
I finally got to this draft.
It seems fine to me in general (of course, it needs review by the DHC WG).
However, I got hung up on the zone-index field. As you say,
"However, in general case, it is hard to use this value."
I think that's very polite! It seems to me that the definition in RFC3493
is basically useless at site-wide level, and in this case we need to
consider site-wide or even Internet-wide values being delivered to hosts.
As 3493 says, "The mapping of sin6_scope_id to an interface or
set of interfaces is left to implementation and future specifications..."
and that is still true today.
I think we have no idea how to use this zone-index field. I think it
is possibly useful to mention it, but it should (IMHO) be marked as
reserved and not to be used. Also, I am not sure that it is OK to
make it 32 bits. There's at least one proposal for generic scope IDs
that would use 128 bits (OK, that's an expired I-D of my own, but it
shows that we really don't know what to do about this yet).
Regards
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
