Subject: text in linklocal-07 supporting an "always on" interpretation

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 16:06:07 -0400

this one is actually brief.

I said I would cite specific text from linklocal-07 that leads me to
believe that the intent is to require hosts to always have linklocal
enabled.

(emphasis mine)

Abstract:

"It would be beneficial for a host to have some useful subset of IP 
networking that it can depend on to be *always functional*..."

Introduction, 3rd pp:

"...This standard removes that restriction, making link-local 
addresses available *all the time*, independent of DHCP"

section 1.2, last pp:

The text suggests that network operators with more than 1300 hosts on a 
single link may want to consider dividing that single link into two or 
more subnets, but doesn't suggest disabling link-local addressing
as a feasible alternative.

suggested rewording:

Abstract:

"It would be beneficial for a host to have the option of using
IP network even in the absence of DHCP or explicit configuration"

Introduction, 3rd pp:

"This standard makes link-local addresses potentially available 
even on networks that support DHCP"

section 1.2, last pp:

"...may want to consider dividing that single link into two or
more subnets, or disabling link-local addressing using the
DHCP extension defined in RFC 2563".

(and subsequently, or elsewhere as appropriate)

"Hosts that implement both this specification and DHCP MUST
honor the DHCP option defined in RFC 2563".

these simple fixes would solve the worst problems with this document.
other clarifications would also IMHO be appropriate; I'll detail
those in a separate message.

Keith