Subject: Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL59] Wireless comment not needed

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 22:50:52 -0700

>I do not agree with the suggested change.  The sentence is harmless and
>satisfies a requirement from the IESG.
>
>- Ralph

All I've heard from anyone to defend this is "someone else wanted it".

If no one in this WG can explain what it means, then how is a new reader 
to make sense of it?

The best I can piece together is this:

Russ Housley said "An entry in the list that does not imply an 
infrastructure of any kind is desirable." (Whatever that means.)

The proposed remedy was a double negative: "This example does not imply 
that IPv4LL configuration is inapplicable to wireless interfaces."

Philip Nye wrote, sensibly:

>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.

The inexplicable parenthetical comment was then added to the document.

That logic seems weak to me.

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