Subject: WG Action - 1 week to discuss [LL9] Introduction to make it clear this is not a replacement for a DHCP assigned address

From: Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:55:41 +0100 (CET)

We will discuss this issue for the next week, ending March 6, 2003.
This issue is reproduced below and  can also be found at
http://www.spybeam.org/ll9.html

Description of Issue  Introduction to make it clear this is not a
replacement for a DHCP assigned address    
Submitter Name  Erik Nordmark
Submitter Email Address  [email-masked]    
Date first submitted 6 Feb 2003    
Reference
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/zeroconf/2002-10/msg00000.html
Comment Type ['T'echnical | 'E'ditorial]  T    
Priority ['S' Must fix | '1' Should fix | '2' May fix ]  S    
Section Abstract, 1
Rationale/Explanation of issue:   
Lengthy description of problem: 

The abstract and first paragraph in the introduction can easily be read
as these addresses being a full-fledged replacement of DHCP assigned
addresses.  Having the text explicitly say that such addresses can not
be used for communication outside a single link would make sense.

Requested Change: 

Link-local communication using link-local addresses is only suitable for
communication with other devices connected to the same physical (or
logical) link. Link-local communication using link-local addresses is
not suitable for communication with devices not directly connected to
the same physical (or logical) link.

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 21:31:37 +0700

LL9 is noise - it is fine, unremarkable (also most likely unnecessary,
but who cares).   Just accept it and avoid hassles.

kre