Subject: Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL55] 'Prevent' is too strong

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 22:40:58 -0700

>We seek the unequivocal prevention of IPv4 LL addressses use off-link
>not to reduction of the risk of their accidental use off-link.

>     The problem is the word 'prevent' for you means 'absolutely prevent'
>     where others have not found this to be the case.  Merriam Webster
>     a) to deprive of power or hoep of acting or succeeding
>     b) to keep from happening or existing <steps to prevent war>
>     c) to hold or keep back:  HINDER, STOP

Erik, you say that

(a) you want to use the word 'prevent' because you seek
    absolute prohibition on IPv4 LL addresses leaving the link,

and then you say that

(b) the word 'prevent' DOES NOT mean "absolute prohibition";
    it only means something milder, like "hinder".

This is self-contradictory.

To my original point:

When you say, "In order to A you should B," that implies that doing B 
will result in A. In this case, that is untrue, which is why I suggest 
the following:

   Implementers should take every possible precaution to prevent
   IPv4 Link-Local addresses being communicated off the local link.
   To that end, the precautions listed below, and others as appropriate,
   should be followed:

   ...

Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
 * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer, Inc.
 * www.stuartcheshire.org