Ralph Droms (rdroms) <rdr...@cisco.com> wrote:
>> Ralph Droms (rdroms) <rdr...@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>> I would still like an explanation of why "subnet" is the wrong term.
>>>>
>>>> When would scope-3 would be used such that it would not correspond to
the set
>>>> of links on which a "/64" (or other size) is used?
>>
>>> Hm, I thought I responded but apparently not...
>>
>>> This change to scope 0x03 is not just for MPL, so we don't know how
>>> else it might be used in the future.
>>
>> I understand, but perhaps it would be better, if, when another use case
comes
>> along, they write a document explaining why scope-3 is correct and
>> non-conflicting with the trickle mcast use case.
> I don't agree; in my opinion, it's better to release scope 0x03 from
> "reserved" state and give guidelines for its use.
I think that we agree about what we want.
What I see you saying is that you want a definition which I find rather
(technically) vague, in anticipation of uses which are not yet well defined,
and may never come to pass.
I'm saying, let's make the MPL scope-3 use case clear and precise, and if
another situation comes along for which scope-3 is appropriate, let's extend
the definition at that time.
Otherwise, this reminds of site-local scope:
We defined it in what we thought were clear terms for a human, but which
turned out to be too vague for machines, with the result that it could never
be discovered/used.
Meanwhile, I think that MPL is hung up waiting for this to be properly
clarified.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
pgpo61bW2cr4f.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
