Subject: WG ACTION: 1 week discussion [LL42] Category inconsistency for DNS /IPv4LL

From: Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:39:19 +0100 (MET)

Please send any comments you may have on this issue to the mailing list
by March 24, 2004.  If no comments are received, this change will be
accepted.

----

LL42

Description of Issue: Category inconsistency for DNS / IPv4LL
prohibition
Submitter Name:       Ted Hardie & Margaret Wasserman
Submitter Email:      
Date submitted:       20 Feb 04
Reference:            
(T=tech, E=edit):     T
Priority (S must, 1 Should, 2 May fix): S
Section:              2.9, 1.4
Rationale/Explanation: 
Long Description:

Ted Hardie wrote:

Section 1.4 says :

  c. Link-Local IPv4 addresses MUST NOT be configured in the DNS.

Section 2.9 says:

  As Link-Local IPv4 addresses may change at any time and have limited
  scope, storing Link-Local IPv4 addresses in the DNS is not well
  understood and is NOT RECOMMENDED.

RFC 2119, Section 4, says "NOT RECOMMENDED" is the same strength
as "SHOULD NOT".  The authors and working group need to decide
whether this prohibition is a MUST or a SHOULD.

Margaret Wasserman wrote:
        This document says, at one point, that storing LL addresses
        in the DNS is not recommended.  But, later it says that
        you MUST NOT store LL addresses in the DNS.  Which is it?
Proposed Change:

Change section 2.9 to be 'MUST NOT'.  The decision to for the MUST
NOT text in section 1.4 was made after Section 2.9.  The new text
for section 2.9 would be:

  As Link-Local IPv4 addresses may change at any time and have limited
  scope, Link-Local IPv4 address MUST NOT be stored in the DNS.
  
----
Erik

---

From: Daniel Senie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:39:34 -0500

Change to MUST NOT is appropriate and consistent.