Subject: RE: Wrap up and last call: sin6_scope_id semantics

From: "Dave Thaler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 12:11:12 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francis Dupont [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 10:40 AM
> To: JINMEI Tatuya / ????
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Wrap up and last call: sin6_scope_id semantics
> 
>  In your previous mail you wrote:
> 
>    Aside from this particular issue, it seems that MIB guys also want
>    zone IDs that can identify particular scope types.
> 
> => ah! They want zone IDs which stand by themselves.

Yes, where you have a zone ID without an address.
 
>    This should basically be the same idea as B.  So I guess supporters
of
>    B do not oppose to this (I hope not, actually).
> 
> => no opposition! Where I can sign? (:-)

Same for supporters of C.  (But yes, this is one of the reasons A is
at the very bottom of my list).
 
>    Can we (especially those who support C) make a compromise on this
with
>    this plan?

Sorry, what was "this"?

> => I believe C is not for the basic API but we can open a new activity
> about C in the advanced API (C people will propose things, A people
will
> reject proposals which are not useful, B people will take holidays
:-)?

If B were the standard interoperable thing, but C would also be legal
behavior (since it's a superset of B behavior) for an implementation,
that
would be fine by me.

-Dave
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 23:38:39 +0900

>>>>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 12:11:12 -0700, 
>>>>> "Dave Thaler" <[email-masked]> said:

 

> Sorry, what was "this"?

Sorry for the ambiguous wording.  I just meant taking the idea from
- take 4+28 split.
...
- when a zone ID is used with an address (typically in the sockaddr_in6
  structure), the scope type of the ID must be equal to the scope type
  of the address.
in my original message, and revising the scoping architecture draft
accordingly.

> behavior (since it's a superset of B behavior) for an implementation,

I think I'm okay with this, as long as we clearly note that C does not
necessarily provide portability and that portable applications should
stick to B.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------