Subject: Re: Strawman version of IPv4 Linklocal-09 posted

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 15:10:25 -0700

Mika Liljeberg wrote:
>In...
>
>   "If the host has no appropriate
>   routable source address, then it MUST ARP for the destination address
>   and then send its packet, with a link-local source IP address and a
>   routable destination IP address, directly to the destination on the
>   same physical link."
>
>s/MUST/SHOULD/

Bernard Aboba wrote:
>OK. I've made that change

This is insanity. Whatever happened to working group discussion and 
consensus?

Over a year ago we had a draft that went through IETF last-call, and we 
were now supposed to be now addressing *ONLY* IESG issues before final 
RFC publication.

Now we're back to making random changes on whim?

We're supposed to have a *very* high barrier to any further change, 
requiring overwhelming WG consensus.

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

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 15:04:48 -0700 (PDT)

> Now we're back to making random changes on whim?

The "random change" in question was requested by someone posting under the
name of Stuart Cheshire on Wednesday, June 4, 2003 in the following
posting:

http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/zeroconf/2003-06/msg00007.html

To quote you:

"This places us in the uncomfortable position where my Mac with a manual
routable address can send packets to my LL printer, but my LL printer
can't reply. I hope we all agree this is nonsense...

LL18 wasn't rejected because people argued against it; it was rejected
because it got forgotten and no one said anything about it at all.

I hope there's no disagreement about fixing this."

So which is it -- do you want this change made or not?