Subject: draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-06.txt

From: Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:09:40 +0200

I have submitted a document to the internet draft editor which
includes all comments which were agreed to during the working
group action.

http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/zeroconf/2002-05/msg00027.html

This means that all outstanding issues from the IETF last call on
this document have been properly dealt with.  The document will
now be put in the hands of the IESG, with the request to advance
the document to proposed standard.

Erik 
ZEROCONF WG cochair

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:19:30 -0400

I was all set to put this before the IESG when I realized that the
IETF Last Call was run all the way back in July of last year. Given
the length of time that has elapsed, I opted to run the LC again. Once
the LC has completed, I will formally put the document before the IESG
as a whole.

In re-reviewing the document, I had the following comments:

Most are nits. The one substantive comment is:

   If the destination address is in the 169.254/16 prefix (including the
   169.254.255.255 broadcast address), the host SHOULD use its link-
   local source address, if it has one. If the host does not have a
   link-local source address, then it MAY choose to ARP for the
   destination address and then send its packet, with a routable source
   IP address and a link-local destination IP address, directly to its
   destination on the same physical link. The host MUST NOT send the
   packet to any router for forwarding.

The above wording suggests that if host has no LL address, it is not
required to use its global address to talk to a device that only has a
LL address. This seems broken (i.e, will result in communication
failure that is hard to diagnose). Seems to me that SHOULD->MUST and
the MAY should also be a MUST.

nits:

The Security considerations should mention the trivial DOS attack
whereby an attacker can force a node to give up its address. This is
discussed in the document, so the security considerations could just
point to that text.

Perhaps Change title to "Usage of and Dynamic Configuration of IPv4 LL Addresses"?

>   addresses in the source or destination address. With respects to

s/respects/respect/

   A host probes to see if an address is already in use by broadcasting
   an ARP request for the desired address. The client MUST fill in the

why not use the previously defined term "ARP Probe" rather than "ARP
Request"?

   being probed. An ARP request constructed this way with an all-zero
   'sender IP address' is referred to as an "ARP probe".

term was already defined earlier.