Skip to main content

Forwarder Policy for Multicast with Admin-Local Scope in the Multicast Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (MPL)
RFC 7732

Yes

(Adrian Farrel)

No Objection

(Alia Atlas)
(Barry Leiba)
(Benoît Claise)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-02-19)
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

No Objection ()

                            

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-02-18)
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?