Subject: WG ACTION: 1 week to discuss [LL46] Text implies limited applicability

From: Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 17:01:47 +0100 (MET)

Please respond to this issue in the next week ending 24 Mar 04.  If no
comments are received we will assume that this issue will be accepted
and the change made

----

LL46

Description of Issue: Text implies limited applicability
Submitter Name:       Russ Housley
Submitter Email:      
Date submitted:       20 Feb 04
Reference:            
(T=tech, E=edit):     
Priority (S must, 1 Should, 2 May fix): 
Section:              2.2
Rationale/Explanation: 

  Section 2.2.  It seems that this technique should work for 802.11 ad
hoc
  networking too.  An entry in the list that does not imply an
infrastructure
  of any kind is desirable.
 
Long Description:
Proposed Change:

Change:
      IEEE 802 hardware link-state change that indicates that a
           cable was attached.

To:
      IEEE 802 hardware link-state change that indicates that a
           cable was attached.  (This example does not imply that
           IPv4LL configuration is inapplicable to wireless
           interfaces).

----
Erik

---

From: Daniel Senie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:46:25 -0500

>            IPv4LL configuration is inapplicable to wireless

802.1x also interferes here.

What we should be saying is that 802 hardware link change appropriate for 
media type and security policy mechanisms all apply. I haven't formulated 
words for this, however what I'm getting at is any wireless or wired 
network implementing access mechanisms may affect the ability of an end 
station to get a usable IP address (whether RFC1918/NAT or public, but 
not-LL) pending authentication, media access control (association with an 
access point, peer-to-peer wireless, wired connection, etc.) and so forth. 
Let's try to avoid references to wires other than as an example of a 
transition that might trigger an event.

---

From: "Philip Nye" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:40:01 -0000

Personally, I don't think any of these changes are necessary - this clearly appears in an "examples include" section and the next line mentions wireless networking. Anyone who cannot extrapolate from examples will not get far with this or any other standard.

I am happy with any of the proposed changes but lets not get bogged down.

Philip

---

From: Daniel Senie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 08:29:58 -0500

At 07:40 AM 3/23/2004, Philip Nye wrote:
>Personally, I don't think any of these changes are necessary - this 
>clearly appears in an "examples include" section and the next line 
>mentions wireless networking. Anyone who cannot extrapolate from examples 
>will not get far with this or any other standard.

In general I agree with you. But since the issue was raised in IESG review, 
I figured we might as well tweak the text to further clarify and make folks 
happy.

>I am happy with any of the proposed changes but lets not get bogged down.

Agree.