Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09

[Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>]

I'd be willing to do a last call. There was no discussion in Hiroshima, and the discussion in Stockholm left you muttering under your breath. Are you *ready* for a last call?

I would suggest that we have a f2f discussion in Anaheim and decide this then.

On Mar 4, 2010, at 3:36 PM, james woodyatt wrote:

> On Mar 4, 2010, at 15:25, Mark Baugher wrote:
>> 
>> 1. Rec-2.  Why not site-scope?
> 
> Because the subscriber and the provider are not the same organization, and we recommend that CPE routers enforce the organization-local scope boundary to protect subscriber's interior multicast routing up to the organization-local scope level, not just the site-local scope level.  This permits a subscriber to, for example, divide their interior network into multiple site-local multicast routing domains, each with potentially multiple links.
> 
>> 2. Rec-42.  Pardon me if I'm being dense, but what are you saying here?  That service providers cannot manage the device from an exterior interface?
> 
> No.  Only that the DEFAULT configuration of subscriber managed gateways is that service providers aren't offered a management interface.  If subscribers are issued provider managed gateways, or they explicitly change the DEFAULT configuration of their subscriber managed gateways, then service providers can manage them.
> 
>> There are many SHOULDs and some should be MUSTs.  I have a long list of nits and such.  I'll send the markups directly to you, James.  Is this Last Call or is this going into Last Call soon?
> 
> The chairs have not made a Last Call.  I'm trying to surface objections before I ask the chairs to issue a Last Call on Sunday evening.
> 
> 
> --
> james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
> member of technical staff, communications engineering
> 
> 
> 

http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF