Subject: Edits to draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-17.txt

From: Sue Joiner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:50:37 -0500

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 15:27:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Edits to draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-17.txt
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS.org
X-Originating-IP: 67.182.139.247
X-Report-Abuse-To: [email-masked] (see
http://www.mailhop.org/outbound/abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: aboba

The RFC Editor has announced AUTH48 on
draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-17.txt.  In the meantime, Stuart has
found a number of issues with the document, most of which are editorial.

Before making the changes, we will be posting the issues to the list to
get feedback.

---------- End Forwarded Message ----------

---

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 13:43:53 -0800

>The 48-hour edit period is not the right time and place to reverse a 
>contentious decision that went back and forth for some time before it 
>was settled.
>
>John

I already said, if this is the only point of disagreement, then I will 
accept it and we should publish the RFC.

My point was not to reverse a contentious decision, but to wonder how it 
got in the document at all, given that the the apparent working group 
consensus on John Schnizlein's proposed text was "Rejected".

<http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/ZEROCONF/ll29.html>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/ZEROCONF/issues.html>

If this is the only point of disagreement, then I will accept it and we 
should publish the RFC.

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