Subject: WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-zeroconf-reqts-05.txt

From: Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:33:01 +0200 (MET DST)

This is a notice of a Working Group Last Call on the document

  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-zeroconf-reqts-05.txt

Please send your comments in the next two weeks.  At that time 
(October 9) we will evaluate the working group consensus on the 
document, if necessary revise the document, then submit it to the 
IESG for publication as an Informational RFC.

Erik

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:15:01 -0400

>IESG for publication as an Informational RFC.

        Section 3 should be rewritten to be consistent with and
specifically address the all of the kinds of threats that are 
outlined in draft-rescorla-sec-cons-01.txt.  If the author believes
a specific threat from that I-D is not applicable, then this
should be stated and the rationale for that belief given
explicitly.  The revised text should use security terminology 
that is consistent with both RFC-2828 and also
draft-rescorla-sec-cons-01.txt.

        Otherwise, the draft looks fine to me.

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: Peter Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 10:27:06 -0700

At 06:33 AM 9/25/00, Erik Guttman wrote:

>Please send your comments in the next two weeks.  At that time (October 9) 
>we will evaluate the working group consensus on the document, if necessary 
>revise the document, then submit it to the IESG for publication as an 
>Informational RFC.

In section 1, I think the last sentence should read "Zeroconf protocols MAY 
use configured information, when it is available, but do not rely on its 
presence." For those of you that don't have the requirements document in 
front of you, the change is from "configuration" to "configured 
information". I could not parse the intent of "configuration" as it is now 
written. I think the change I propose is consistent with the intent of the 
working group, but if I'm mistaken I think a (short) discussion is 
merited---so as too avoid confusion over a fundamental part of the 
requirements.

In section 1.6, what is a "spurious topology change"? I suggest that the 
word "spurious" be removed; the sentence seems to be applicable without it.

In section 2.1.2, what is a "bridge"?

Regards,

Peter Johansson

Congruent Software, Inc.
98 Colorado Avenue
Berkeley, CA  94707

(510) 527-3926
(510) 527-3856 FAX

[email-masked]