idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The 'Updates: ' line in the draft header should list only the _numbers_ of the RFCs which will be updated by this document (if approved); it should not include the word 'RFC' in the list. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC4291, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC4007, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC4007, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2003-06-25) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (November 11, 2013) is 3818 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Engineering Task Force R. Droms 3 Internet-Draft Cisco 4 Updates: RFC 4007, RFC 4291 (if approved) November 11, 2013 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: May 15, 2014 8 IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes 9 draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt 11 Abstract 13 This document updates the definitions of IPv6 multicast scopes. 15 Status of This Memo 17 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 18 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 21 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 22 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 23 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 25 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 26 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 27 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 28 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 30 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 15, 2014. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 35 document authors. All rights reserved. 37 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 38 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 39 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 40 publication of this document. Please review these documents 41 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 42 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 43 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 44 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 45 described in the Simplified BSD License. 47 1. Definition of IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes (Updates RFC 4291) 48 RFC 4291 [RFC4291] defines "scop is a 4-bit multicast scope value 49 used to limit the scope of the multicast group." scop 3 is defined as 50 "reserved" in RFC 4291. The multicast protocol specification in 51 draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast [I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] desires 52 to use multicast scop 3 for transport of multicast traffic scoped to 53 a network of nodes connected in a mesh. The use of this scop value 54 is to accommodate a multicast scope that is greater than Link-Local 55 but is also automatically determined by the network architecture. 57 The following table updates the definitions in RFC 4291: 59 0 reserved 61 1 Interface-Local scope 63 2 Link-Local scope 65 3 Realm-Local scope 67 4 Admin-Local scope 69 5 Site-Local scope 71 6 (unassigned) 73 7 (unassigned) 75 8 Organization-Local scope 77 9 (unassigned) 79 A (unassigned) 81 B (unassigned) 83 C (unassigned) 85 D (unassigned) 87 E Global scope 89 F reserved 91 The following change is applied to section 2.7 of RFC 4291: 93 OLD: 95 Admin-Local scope is the smallest scope that must be 96 administratively configured, i.e., not automatically derived 97 from physical connectivity or other, non-multicast-related 98 configuration. 100 NEW: 102 Interface-Local, Link-Local, and Realm-Local scope 103 boundaries are automatically derived from physical 104 connectivity or other, non-multicast related configuration. 105 Global scope has no boundary. The boundaries of all other 106 non-reserved scopes of Admin-Local or larger are 107 administratively configured. For reserved scopes, the way 108 of configuring their boundaries will be defined when the 109 semantics of the scope is defined. 111 According to RFC 4007 [RFC4007], the zone of a Realm-Local 112 scope must fall within zones of larger scope. Because the 113 zone of a Realm-Local scope is configured automatically, 114 while the zones of larger scopes are configured manually, 115 care must be taken in the definition of those larger scopes 116 to ensure that inclusion contraint is met. 118 2. Definition of Realm-Local scopes 120 The definition of any Realm-Local scope for a particular network 121 technology should be published in an RFC. For example, such a scope 122 definition would be appropriate for publication in an "IPv6-over-foo" 123 RFC. 125 Any RFCs that include the definition of a Realm-Local scope will be 126 listed in the IANA "IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes" registry. 128 Section 4 gives the definition of scop 3 for IEEE 802.15.4 129 [IEEE802.15.4] networks. 131 3. Definition of automatic and administratively configured scopes 132 (updates RFC 4007) 134 Section 5 of RFC 4007 [RFC4007] and section 2.7 of RFC 4291 disagree 135 about the way in which multicast scope 3 is configured. To resolve 136 that disagreement, change the last bullet in the list in section 5 of 137 RFC 4007 as follows: 139 OLD: 141 o The boundaries of zones of a scope other than interface-local, 142 link-local, and global must be defined and configured by network 143 administrators. 145 NEW: 147 o The boundaries of zones of a scope are defined by the IPv6 148 addressing architecture [RFC4291]. 150 4. Definition of Realm-Local Scope for IEEE 802.15.4 152 When used in an IP-over-IEEE802.15.4 network, "scop 3" is defined to 153 include all interfaces sharing a PAN ID. 155 5. IANA Considerations 157 IANA is asked to establish a sub-registry titled "IPv6 Multicast 158 Address Scopes" in the existing "Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) 159 Multicast Address Allocations" registry. The "IPv6 Multicast Address 160 Scopes" is to be populated with the scope values given in section 1, 161 with a note associated with scope 3 listing all RFCs that define 162 Realm-Local scoping rules that use scope 3. 164 6. Acknowledgments 166 Robert Cragie, Kerry Lynn, Jinmei Tatuya, Dave Thaler and Stig Venaas 167 all contributed text and/or review to ensure that the updates to RFC 168 4007 and RFC 4291 are correct 170 7. Security Considerations 172 This document has no security considerations beyond those in RFC 4291 173 [RFC4291]. 175 8. References 177 8.1. Normative References 179 [RFC4007] Deering, S., Haberman, B., Jinmei, T., Nordmark, E., and 180 B. Zill, "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture", RFC 4007, 181 March 2005. 183 [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing 184 Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. 186 8.2. Informative References 188 [I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] 189 Hui, J. and R. Kelsey, "Multicast Protocol for Low power 190 and Lossy Networks (MPL)", draft-ietf-roll-trickle- 191 mcast-05 (work in progress), August 2013. 193 [IEEE802.15.4] 194 IEEE Std 802.15.4-2006, "IEEE Standard for Information 195 technology - Telecommunications and information exchange 196 between systems - Local and metropolitan area networks - 197 Specific requirements; Part 15.4: Wireless Medium Access 198 Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for 199 Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)", October 200 2006. 202 Author's Address 204 Ralph Droms 205 Cisco 206 1414 Massachusetts Avenue 207 Boxborough, MA 01719 208 US 210 Phone: +1 978 936 1674 211 Email: rdroms@cisco.com