Subject: WG status - last minute issues to consider

From: Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 00:40:53 +0200

WG status:

We have only one item on our charter, the IPv4 LL autoconfiguration
specification.  This document has passed WG and IETF last call and
satisfied all remaining IESG objections.

I have received a set of change requests from Stuart Cheshire.  I am
opening a new set of issues to discuss them.  I summarize them below.

It is of course our continuing desire to publish a high quality
document.  At the same time, I must resist any attempt to reopen
issues which have been resolved at this time.  I make my
recommendations as to what to do which each issue, but I leave it to
you to judge.  We will need a strong consensus to adopt *any* changes
at this point.

Special mention must be made of issue LL67 .  Stuart has found a flaw
in the protocol as specified which would seriously limit the
interoperability of hosts.  I strongly encourage the WG to pay special
attention to this item and to support the change, even if we have to
go through further review.  I believe we overlooked this problem and
it is entirely consistent with the rest of the document to make the
change.

Another issue we need to consider closely is LL61.  Is it really
necessary to add an initial wait interval as per LL31?

Thank you in advance for your engagement over the next week in
discussing the issues I put before you.

Issue Type Title                                              Recommend
----- ---- -------------------------------------------------- ---------
LL52   t    Text surrounding RFC 2119 clause is poor           Reject
LL53   e    Forward references requested                       Reject
LL54   e    Consistent terminology for out of scope            Accept **
LL55   e    'Prevent' is too strong                            Reject
LL56 * t    Contradictory text?                                Reject
LL57   e    Straightforward editorial fixes                    Accept **
LL58   t    Duplicate inconsistent routable address            Accept **
             definition
LL59   e    Wireless comment not needed                        Reject
LL60   e    Forward reference style                            Reject
LL61   t    Remove random wait                                 Accept
LL62 * t    Do not space probes randomly                       Reject
LL63 * e    Text should be more explicit                       Reject
LL64   e    Simplify some text                                 Accept **
LL65 * t    need a requirement for multihomed hosts            Reject
LL66   t    Additional statistical example                     Reject
LL67   t    Fix clause which forbids routable to LL commun-    Accept
             ication
LL68 * e    Stress constants are not user configurable         Reject
LL69   e    Move constants to beginning of doc                 Reject
LL70   t    DNAv4 normative or informative?                    Reject

  * TEXT NEEDED

** These fixes are already present in the candidate draft 15 (next
    draft) - which is available to assist your review at:
http://www.drizzle.org/~aboba/ZEROCONF/draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-15.txt