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

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 16:30:46 -0700

>If you are correct that it is fiction then I agree that this assertion 
>could be removed. However, why wasn't it weeded out at draft 2 or 3?

It was never in the early drafts.

It seems to have appeared in draft-11, in January this year.

>it is insulting to the group on this list who have patiently debated 
>through this document over months and months and after the process is 
>closed to attempt to reopen debate over whether a different way to 
>express something is "better" than the way which has been agreed.

Please remember that I've been doing as long as anyone.

I did the Mac OS 8.5 implementation, back in 1998, and I co-chaired the 
first NITS bof in 1999.

If you're tired of this, think how I feel.

At the end of the day, this is something I've been working on for six 
years now. That's a long time for a document that can basically be summed 
up as, "Pick an address and ARP to see if someone else is already using 
it."

What I'd like to avoid is a Bay-of-Pigs type situation where someone 
points to a sentence or paragraph in the document and says, "What does 
that mean?" and none of us knows the answer.

LL46 is a good example.

The WG chair announced, "1 week to discuss [LL46]".

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.

Daniel Senie wrote:

>In general I agree with you.

Final resolution: "Action: Accept this change."

Huh?

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

---

From: "Philip Nye" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 08:40:15 -0000

> From: "Stuart Cheshire" <[email-masked]>
>

You are correct here - sorry.

You questioned the truth of the assertion in clause 2.11 that "early implementations of IPv4 link-local have modified the DHCP  state machine...". The answer is in the document already  - the latest draft states in appendix A.3:

   "When in INIT state, the Windows 98/98SE DHCP Client sends out a
   total of 4 DHCPDISCOVERs, with an inter-packet interval of 6
   seconds.  When no response is received after all 4 packets (24
   seconds), it will autoconfigure an address."

Windows at this point abandons its DHCP address whether or not it has a valid lease. This is one of the things which Clause 2.11 is specifically warning against and is a modifcation of the DHCP state machine to accomodate IPv4LL autoconfiguration.

The details for the Mac OS 8 and 9 also suggest that no attempt is made to use a valid existing lease if a DHCP server is not found - favouring IPv4LL.

Philip

---

From: "Philip Nye" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 08:44:20 -0000

> Final resolution: "Action: Accept this change."

I stand by my comment then and later. The extra phrase was added at the request of the IESG. We could have pointed out to the person concerned that the very next example mentioned wireless networks and asked whether they thought their text was still necessary. For all I know this was done? We could have spent an extra week or two (or three or four) batting it around to get a better form of words, but in fact the meaning of the text in question is clear enough and is not wrong. It does not affect the protocol in any way - it is merely redundant in the opinion of some (myself included). In these circumstances I was happy to see it go through in the interests of closure - given that somebody else thought it important.

My frustration now is not with your argument over this text, it is with your timing - LL46 was discussed and you had as much opportunity to argue the point then as anyone else. The issue was closed and should not be reopened unless the text is incorrect or likely to cause erroneous implementations. This test definitely applies to some of the issues which you have recently raised and I have supported them.

Philip

---

From: Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 16:40:06 +0200 (MEST)

Stuart,

You left out the context of LL46.

1) I presented the IESG concerns to the WG for discussion
2) We worked with the IESG members and had an opportunity to dissent
3) We closed the discussion

What is important in an IETF working group effort is to achieve at
least a rough consensus in a timely manner.  The process has been
open, fair and must be binding.

I am sure that if you had raised the point regarding the utility of the
text in March, you could have worked something out with Russ.  The point
is, it is now too late for this unless you have strong support from the
WG.

We will make any changes needed to correct errors in the document that
would prevent it from serving its intended purpose.  *All* changes at
this point must be passed with a strong WG consensus.  The existing
document with the agreed upon changes will be what is provided to the
IESG as the WG's recommendation to publish as an RFC.  If you feel that
this process has not been correct according to the IETF procedures and
policies you may of course appeal the output of the WG. 

Erik