Subject: my response to the proposed changes

From: Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:58:39 +0200 (CEST)

Folks,

These are my suggested changes - as a working group participant, not as WG
chair:

1)  I support the following change:

    We have to fix the last paragraph of 2.2.1 since it should read
    2 seconds instead of 10 seconds for 'DEFEND_INTERVAL'.  I agree
    it should be called ANNOUNCE_WAIT.  The changes are:

section 2.2.1
WAS:
   If during this period, from the beginning of the probing process
   until DEFEND_INTERVAL seconds after the last probe packet is sent,
   the host receives any ARP packet (Request *or* Reply) on the
BECOMES:
   If during this period, from the beginning of the probing process
   until DEFEND_INTERVAL seconds after the last probe packet is sent,
   the host receives any ARP packet (Request *or* Reply) on the

Section 2.2.1
WAS:
   If, by DEFEND_INTERVAL seconds after the transmission of the last ARP
   probe no conflicting ARP Reply or ARP probe has been received, then
   the host has successfully claimed the desired IPv4 Link-Local
   address.
BECOMES:
   If, by ANNOUNCE_WAIT seconds after the transmission of the last ARP
   probe no conflicting ARP Reply or ARP probe has been received, then
   the host has successfully claimed the desired IPv4 Link-Local
   address.

section 9
WAS:
   DEFEND_INTERVAL     10 seconds  (after probes, wait for defense)
BECOMES:
   ANNOUNCE_WAIT        2 seconds  (after probes, wait for till 'success'
                                    and to initiate announcements.)

---
2) I do not support the changes of START_WAIT to PROBE_WAIT or
   ANNOUNCE_N to ANNOUNCE_NUM since these are esthetic only.

---

3) I do not support the change below because I do not think the new text
   improves the clarity of the document.

Section 9
Was:
    DEFEND_INTERVAL     10 seconds  (after probes, wait for defense)
    WATCH_WAIT          10 seconds  (time to continue to defend your address,
                                     for IEEE 802 networks)

Becomes:
    DEFEND_INTERVAL     10 seconds  (min interval between defensive ARPs)

Section 1.3 and 2.5
Was
    WATCH_WAIT
Becomes
    DEFEND_INTERVAL

---

Best regards,

Erik

---

From: Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:51:03 +0200 (CEST)

Folks,

I want to support Stuart's excellent observation that we no longer need
the [1394] or [802.1d] reference.

Sorry I was a bit incoherent yesterday.  For once trying to get organized
backfired.  Here are a few ammended remarks.

>    If during this period, from the beginning of the probing process
     until ANNOUNCE_WAIT seconds after the last probe packet is sent,
>    the host receives any ARP packet (Request *or* Reply) on the

Stuart's remarks have convinced me that the below is an OK idea to change
the text for DEFEND_INTERVAL.

>     DEFEND_INTERVAL     10 seconds  (min interval between defensive ARPs)

However I do not support the idea of merging WATCH_WAIT and
DEFEND_INTERVAL.

>     DEFEND_INTERVAL

WATCH_WAIT is used in section 2.5 for holding onto one's address after
defending it against a potential conflict. This seems OK set at 10 seconds
for 802 links.  (I support Philip Nye's suggested modification to 2.5 and
WATCH_WAIT's definition in section 9.)

In section 2.2.1 DEFEND_INTERVAL is a period after the last probe in which
one will relinquish a pseudo random address it is trying to configure.
This value should be 2 seconds, since that is what we had until we messed
things up in draft 15 with all our last minute changes.

These are different tasks, right?

Regards,

Erik
(not as WG chair)