Subject: my response to "general zeroconf co-existance requirements"

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 08:47:20 -0400

this text looks good.  however somewhere in the document I think it should
be stated that zeroconf MUST NOT adversely impact the abliity of the
network to support existing _kinds_ of applications.  that is, if
specific applications require minor modification to work effectively after
the introduction of zeroconf, that's perhaps tolerable - provided there
is a workaround (which currently doesn't exist for LL).  on the other
hand, if the introduction of zeroconf requires major modifications to
such applicatons or if it impairs their ability to function at all,
ths is not acceptable.

---

From: Aidan Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 10:17:22 +1000

> such applicatons or if it impairs their ability to function at all,

This text is in the paragraph preceeding these requirements:

    Given that zeroconf protocols may be deployed on existing configured
    networks, care must be taken in their design to ensure minimum
    disruption to existing networks and applications.

ACTION: crank the SHOULDs to MUSTS:

     o  Zeroconf protocols MUST minimise their impact on existing
        networks
     o  Zeroconf protocols MUST minimise impact on existing
        applications.

-- 

regards
	aidan
____
:wq!

Sydney Network Research Lab             [email-masked]
Motorola Australian Research Centre          phone: +61 2 9666 0649
Locked Bag 5028, Botany NSW 1455              phax: +61 2 9666 0501
Australia                            http://marc.labs.mot.com/snrl/