IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes
draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-07

[Ballot comment]
Ah, the glories of getting a late start on telechat reading.

I would have balloted Discuss on approximately Stephen's point, but it's already being robustly discussed among people who understand the details better than I do, and seems close to converging. :D

[Ballot discuss]
My Discuss contains two rather minor points that need to be ironed out to make sure that the document is unambiguous.

---

In two places in the document you have

        The definition of any Realm-Local scope for a particular network
        technology should be published in an RFC.  For example, such a
        scope definition would be appropriate for publication in an
        'IPv6- over-foo' RFC.

        Any RFCs that include the definition of a Realm-Local scope will
        be listed in this registry.

I think this is giving specific instructions about a subregistry that
needs to be maintained. That is, a registry of real-Local scopes. Could
you please set out for IANA exactly what information you want them to
record in that subregistry.

---

The update to RFC 4007 puzzles me. You would have the new text read...

    o  The boundaries of zones of a scope are defined by the IPv6
        addressing architecture [RFC4291] and updated by this document.

"This document" would not be RFC 4007, I suspect despite the quoted text
being intended as a substitution in RFC 4007.

[Ballot comment]
I'm curious to see the response on Stephen's question.  Also, the referenced security consideration sections don't talk about the global scope and any risk related to not having a boundary.  Some text on that could be helpful or perhaps an explanation so I know why it is not needed would be helpful.

[Ballot comment]


Pardon my multicast ignorance (I only used smcroute for the
1st time recently:-) but what happens if a router in the
group supports two different technologies on different
interfaces, each of which defines scop=3 to be something
local(-ish) - do the packets get forwarded between
technologies or not?

If the answer to the above is "yes," then I think there's a
security consideration to be stated here, which is that
scop=3 does not mean that packets are limited to being seen
by nodes running a specific technology but may go further
via a router. That could be unexpected enough to be worth
stating.

If the answer is "no" then I think you need to change the
draft to make that clearer, if you want people like me to
understand that.

Or maybe its just a dumb question:-)

[Ballot comment]
1. Did you mean to change the text for scop=1 in the table, from "Interface-Local scope" to just "Interface"?  I don't think so.

2. In Section 3 you say this:

  Section 5 gives the definition of scop 3 for IEEE 802.15.4
  [IEEE802.15.4] networks.

...but then Section 4 immediately talks about Section 5 of RFC 4007.  Just to make sure no one misunderstands, maybe Section 3 should say, "Section 5, below, gives...", yes?

3. I understand you're about to submit a revised I-D that clarifies this from the IANA Considerations:

  The registry
  will have a note associated with scope 3 listing all RFCs that define
  Realm-Local scoping rules that use scope 3.

I await that update, and might comment further...

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-05.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

QUESTION: The document says, "Any RFCs that include the definition of a Realm-Local scope will be listed in the IANA 'IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes' registry." We're not clear on how this will be reflected in the registry. Does this mean that RFCs of this type should be added as additional references for value 3? (Of course, those RFCs will have to instruct IANA to do this.)

In the IPv6 Multicast Address Space Registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-multicast-addresses/

a new registry called "IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes" is to be created.  The new registry is to be maintained via IETF Review as defined in RFC 5226.  These are the initial registrations:

+------+--------------------------+--------------------+
| scop | NAME                    | REFERENCE          |
+------+--------------------------+--------------------+
|  0  | Reserved                | [ RFC-to-be ]      |
|  1  | Interface                | [ RFC-to-be ]      |
|  2  | Link-Local scope        | [ RFC-to-be ]      |
|  3  | Realm-Local scope        | [ RFC-to-be ]      |
|  4  | Admin-Local scope        | [ RFC-to-be ]      |
|  5  | Site-Local scope        | [ RFC-to-be ]      |
|  6  | Unassigned     
|  7  | Unassigned         
|  8  | Organization-Local scope | [ RFC-to-be ]      |
|  9  | Unassigned 
|  A  | Unassigned 
|  B  | Unassigned 
|  C  | Unassigned 
|  D  | Unassigned 
|  E  | Global scope            | [ RFC-to-be ]      |
|  F  | Reserved                | [ RFC-to-be ]      |
+------+--------------------------+--------------------+

IANA will add a note to the top of this registry:

"The definition of any Realm-Local scope for a particular network technology should be published in an RFC.  For example, such a scope definition would be appropriate for publication in an 'IPv6-over-foo' RFC.

Any RFCs that include the definition of a Realm-Local scope will be listed in this registry."

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
consider the following document:
- 'IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-05-30. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document updates the definitions of IPv6 multicast scopes.  This
  document updates RFC 4007 and RFC 4291




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  Proposed Standard document. This is the correct type because it
  updates the definition of multicast scopes that is done in other
  standards documents. The type is indicated on the title page.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document updates the definitions of IPv6 multicast scopes. As
  defined in RFC4291 (RFC4007)

Working Group Summary

  Nothing to note.

Document Quality

  The ZigBee-IP spec uses multicast with scope 0x03 in a couple of
  ways and there are several independent interoperating
  implementations of ZigBee-IP.

  The 6man working group appoints reviewers for all documents being
  advanced to the IESG. This document has been reviewed in detail by
  Jouni Korhonen. In addition to the chair's and shepherd's review.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: Ole Troan
  Responsible Area Director: Brian Haberman

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  The document has been reviewed by the 6man chairs, ID nits have been
  checked, as well as the appointed 6man reviewer.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

  No.


(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

  None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

  The document is large the product of a few individuals, where the
  consumers of this document is in the 6lowpan working group. As this
  updates the IPv6 base specifications, the 6man working group has
  provided thorough review and 'vital' individuals have given their
  approval for the change.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No appeal or discontent registered.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No nits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No formal reviews required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

  None.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  It will update RFC4007 and RFC4291.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  I can confirm all points.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  The new "IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes" require IETF review, so
  there are no need for IANA expert selection.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  There are no formal language in this document.