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

[james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>]

On Mar 4, 2010, at 15:56, Fred Baker wrote:
> 
> I'm not even sure I understand the recommendation. To be sure, RFC 4291 knows nothing of an "organization-local" scope; what is likely meant here is "site-local".

Page 13 of RFC 4291 assigns the value 8 in the 4-bit scope field to Organization-Local and says this about it in the third-to-the-last paragraph:

	Organization-Local scope is intended to span multiple sites
        belonging to a single organization."

I don't really have a strong opinion on site-local vs. organization-local.  I think it says what it currently does because that's what I wrote in the first draft, and it hasn't been much of an issue until now.

I will say that it doesn't make sense to me that my service provider should be allowed to join my organization-local scope multicast groups, or that I can join their organization-local scope groups.  That's what it would mean if we said 'site-local' here instead of what it currently says.

Do we want to recommend that subscriber networks and provider networks be included in the same organization-local multicast scope by DEFAULT?  What would be the theory behind that decision?

> Last call will not happen before IETF 77.

Okay.  I can live with that.

> Are you *ready* for a last call?

Given that this is the first time I've served as a technical editor on a working group draft, I'm not sure I can answer that with any confidence.  I'll defer to the chairs.

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

Sure.  I'll be in Anaheim.


--
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
member of technical staff, communications engineering