Subject: Re: Summary of Issues for draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-04.txt

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:34:53 -0800

>The issue here isn't the technical compromise.

I never said it was a technical compromise. It is an editorial 
compromise, between idealism of the purity of a Standards-Track RFC, and 
the pragmatism of providing accurate helpful information to implementers.

>Did you actually read what I suggested replacing your suggested
>text with, or did you just notice which section I was commenting
>on, and jump to conclusions about what I was trying to say?

Yes, of course I read it.

No one will accuse me of being in love with Microsoft, but I also have to 
accept that many of the vendors that I deal with at Apple (the vendors to 
whom this draft is aimed) care 99% about Microsoft, 1% about Apple, and 
not at all about any other platform. We may all hate that, but to delude 
ourselves about the reality of the attitudes out there doesn't help us.

My fear is that if we write, "there are widely deployed implementations 
of this protocol..." then we are deliberately obfuscating the truth. *We* 
may all know that we're using "widely deployed implementations" as a 
euphemism for "Microsoft", but will others? I think many implementers may 
read that paragraph, and react by saying, "Why should I care if some 
stupid vendor can't follow the RFC? That's their problem." If that 
implementer knows that the vendor in question is Microsoft, and their 
"defective" implementation actually shipped three years (four years? five 
years?) before the RFC was published, and the implementer in question is 
trying to make a printer solely for the Windows market, they may have a 
very different reaction.

So, to tally the opinions so far:

Opinions voiced in support of removing mention of Microsoft in
Section 2.5:
1. Stuart Cheshire
2. Robert Elz
3. Ran Atkinson

Opinions voiced in support of retaining mention of Microsoft in
Section 2.5:
(None)

Other opinions voiced without making a strong statement either way on
the *specific* wording that should appear in the draft:
1. Daniel Senie
2. Bernard Aboba

Daniel and Bernard, if you'd like to take a more strongly held position 
on the question of specific mention of Microsoft in Section 2.5, please 
do so, and I will adjust the tally accordingly.

Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
 * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer
 * Chairman, IETF ZEROCONF
 * www.stuartcheshire.org

---

From: Daniel Senie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:37:16 -0500

>do so, and I will adjust the tally accordingly.

I would prefer the SPECIFIC vendor not be listed. Mentioning that at least 
one vendor has an incompatible implementation is appropriate, and that it 
would be advisable for the near term (purposely vague as to timeframe) that 
enforcing the TTL=255 may not be worthwhile.

The specific information in the form of Registry details is inappropriate, 
in my opinion.

So, count me as believing Microsoft NOT be mentioned, Registry details NOT 
be mentioned, but generic information warning of the compatability issue 
SHOULD be mentioned.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Senie                                        [email-masked]
Amaranth Networks Inc.                    http://www.amaranth.com