IETF
core@jabber.ietf.org
Tuesday, July 2, 2019< ^ >
irob has set the subject to:
Room Configuration
Room Occupants

GMT+0
[09:15:49] Christian Amsüss joins the room
[09:15:52] Jaime Jiménez joins the room
[09:15:54] <Jaime Jiménez> welcome
[09:15:59] <Christian Amsüss> hi
[09:16:07] <Jaime Jiménez> carsten joining
[09:22:28] cabo joins the room
[09:24:16] <Jaime Jiménez> Oh, here we are
[09:25:21] <Jaime Jiménez> shall we discuss the little IANA nit briefly?
[09:25:31] <cabo> Ah.
[09:26:05] <Christian Amsüss> i'd edit the text as you just suggested in #215
[09:26:31] <Christian Amsüss> oh there was a point about going to the list as well...
[09:28:23] <cabo> I have 127 matches to "All CoAP nodes" in my mailbox.
[09:29:31] <Christian Amsüss> all i see on core on that was about ipv6 scopes (but then there i found only 3)
[09:31:05] <Jaime Jiménez> Easier here, no?
[09:31:06] <Jaime Jiménez> https://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses/multicast-addresses.xhtml
[09:31:48] <Christian Amsüss> (off topic but as i'm just running through them: can, in an rfc, the description of a figure refer to another figure? can't get kramdown-rfc2629 to do it...)
[09:34:26] <cabo> Issue 87
[09:34:53] <cabo> I don't think the XML lets you
[09:36:03] <Jaime Jiménez> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-multicast-addresses/ipv6-multicast-addresses.xhtml
[09:36:37] <Jaime Jiménez> What do you mean? FF0X:0:0:0:0:0:0:FE is unassigned
[09:37:13] <Christian Amsüss> i think the question is not so much "can we register" / "which addresses should we ask for" but "do we want to ask for a new ipv4 address, and was there any relevant discussion that led to it"
[09:37:19] <Jaime Jiménez> Oh, that was about kramdown
[09:41:04] <Jaime Jiménez> A new IPv6 address is a no-brainer a new IPv4 one could be taken to the list but I think it'd make a lot of sense to have the same behaviour in IPv6 and IPv4, right? If IPv4 multicast is "All CoAP Nodes" and on FF0X:0:0:0:0:0:0:FE it is "all CoRE resource directories" that'd be confusing. Am I missing something?
[09:42:33] <Christian Amsüss> confusing a bit, but going All-CoAP-Nodes even on v6 is wasteful on networks with many non-RD nodes
[09:43:07] <Christian Amsüss> the easiest thing to do would be to just ask for a v4 multicast address as well
[09:43:32] <cabo> Yes!
[09:43:42] <Jaime Jiménez> +1
[09:43:51] <cabo> I'm just trying to find previous discussion of this.
[09:43:57] <cabo> Issue 87 was, in a way
[09:44:02] <Christian Amsüss> i don't think there was more than 87
[09:44:18] <Christian Amsüss> then let's do it (will write the changes right after i'm through with the figure numbers)
[09:45:45] <Jaime Jiménez> OK, please remember to send an email to the list with the new version.
[09:46:11] <Jaime Jiménez> I have to leave for few hours but I'll be back to jabber later today.
[09:46:22] <Christian Amsüss> won't that happen automatically anyway? (i'd just follow up on that with the changelog)
[09:46:55] <Jaime Jiménez> Yes, but let's mention this clarification just so nobody misses it, maybe refer to ghi 87
[09:47:05] <Jaime Jiménez> Anyways, I htink it'll be fine
[09:47:34] Jaime Jiménez leaves the room
[10:33:18] Christian Amsüss leaves the room: Machine is going to sleep
[11:42:19] cabo leaves the room