Subject: Re: my response to the proposed changes

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:49:19 -0700

>And since I'm here (I was going to avoid this discussion), I certainly
>agree that preventing dueling ARPs at flat out net rate is a good
>thing to do), but I cannot fathom any justification for 10 minutes
                                                            ^^^^^^^

** SECONDS **

How long have we been working on this?

The time has been ten seconds since draft-01.

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

---

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:58:49 -0700

>The name "DEFEND_INTERVAL" is used in the current draft in section 2.2.1. 
>(There is a proposal to change this name to ANNOUNCE_WAIT). For this 
>reason re-using "DEFEND_INTERVAL" for what is currently WATCH_WAIT is a 
>bad idea however apt the name might be since it is obviously leading to 
>huge confusion.

No. We're not re-using anything that already has established meaning. The 
name "DEFEND_INTERVAL" in Section 2.2.1 was BRAND NEW in draft-15. It was 
a mistake.

In draft-14 I pointed out an editorial issue: That all time values had 
been turned into symbolic constants except for one: the ten-second 
defensive ARP interval in Section 2.5. I thought this was an oversight. I 
suggested that for consistency the minimum defensive ARP interval should 
also be turned into symbolic constant, called DEFEND_INTERVAL. It should 
have been a simple and non-controversial fix.

Erik misunderstood me, named the minimum defensive ARP interval 
"WATCH_WAIT", and added DEFEND_INTERVAL somewhere completely different.

All I'm saying is that we should fix this naming mistake.