Subject: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL63] Text could be more specific

From: Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 01:17:00 +0200

Please post discussion of this issue to the mailing list over the 
next two weeks
ending May 18, 2004.  In order to accept this issued, we will need a strong WG
consensus given that this is very late in the process.

Please see http://www.drizzle.org/~aboba/ZEROCONF/issues.html for a list of
current issues and their status.

[LL63]

Description of Issue:		Text should be more specific
Submitter Name:                 Stuart Cheshire
Submitter Email Address:        [email-masked]
Date first submitted:           04 May 04
Reference:			LL40
Comment Type ['t'ech|'e'dit]:	e
Prio ['S' Must|1 should|2 may]:	1
Section:			2.11
Rationale/Explanation:
Lengthy Description:

[Stuart]

>    Several early implementations of IPv4 Link-Local have modified the
>    DHCP  state machine in an attempt to make IPv4 Link-Local more
>    reliable, and the  field experience we have gained from this has
>    shown that it does not work  - reliability of DHCP service is
>    significantly reduced.

Is this referring to some Windows bug? It's too vague. We should either
make it concrete enough that the reader understands the specific example
that's being given, or delete it.

[Erik]

This text was very difficult to craft and resulted in 3 successive WG
last call discussions.  Revision of this text, or worse, its removal,
would cause the document to become unacceptable to the DHC WG.

See LL40 especially.

[Stuart]

Okay, I'll be more blunt: This statement is false. It is an outright lie.
Why put known falsehood in the document? If I'm wrong, then please state
which "early implementations of IPv4 Link-Local have modified the DHCP
state machine in an attempt to make IPv4 Link-Local more reliable" and
then I'll be happy with the text.

[Erik]

You don't like the word 'several' in the cited section, is that
the issue?   I have no objects changing the word 'several' to 'at least
one'

Requested Change:

TEXT NEEDED

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 21:27:24 -0400

I can't respond to this issue without text suggesting what would be 
acceptable wording.

- Ralph

At 01:17 AM 5/5/2004 +0200, Erik Guttman wrote:
>Please post discussion of this issue to the mailing list over the next two 
>weeks