Forwarder Policy for Multicast with Admin-Local Scope in the Multicast Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (MPL)
RFC 7732
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
Thank you for the additions in text that resulted from the SecDir review and subsequent discussion. I found the discussion helpful to better understand the draft and security concerns. The current text looks good, but I did get additional context from the discussion that is not in the draft. The 4 possibilities listed int he security considerations look good and I don't have any recommendations as reading it again after the SecDir discussion made more sense. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05435.html
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
One question: In this text:
4.1. Legal multicast messages
Multicast messages can be created within the node by an application
or can arrive at an interface.
A multicast message created at a source (MPL seed) is legal when it
conforms to the properties described in section 9.1 of
[I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast].
A multicast message received at a given interface is legal when:
o The message carries an MPL option (MPL message) and the incoming
MPL interface is subscribed to the destination multicast address.
o The message does not carry an MPL option, the multicast address is
unequal to ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS scope 4 or scope 3, and the
interface has expressed interest to receive messages with the
specified multicast address via MLD [RFC3810] or via IGMP
[RFC3376]. The message was sent on according to PIM-DM [RFC3973]
or according to PIM-SM [RFC4601].
Illegal multicast messages are discarded.
4.2. Forwarding legal packets
A legal multicast message received at a given interface is assigned
the network identifier of the interface of the incoming link . A
message that is created within the node is assigned the network
identifier "any".
Two types of legal multicast messages are considered: (1) MPL
messages, and (2) multicast messages which do not carry the MPL
option.
Is "legal/illegal" the right terminology for this?