Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)

"Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <> Thu, 22 July 2010 09:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DF303A69FB for <>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.08
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.08 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.481, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3ofNF5vKw3+C for <>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18C343A68A2 for <>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,242,1278284400"; d="scan'208";a="77804014"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 22 Jul 2010 10:14:10 +0100
Received: from glkms1103.GREENLNK.NET ( []) by (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id o6M9E9TJ024777; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:14:10 +0100
Received: from GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET ([]) by glkms1103.GREENLNK.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:14:10 +0100
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:14:09 +0100
Message-ID: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0344F804@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
In-Reply-To: <>
thread-topic: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)
thread-index: AcspfUm53T/msA6vTRihNgXW9z0QEQAAHtfg
References: <><> <><> <> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0344F7B9@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <>
From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <>
To: "Alexandru Petrescu" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jul 2010 09:14:10.0560 (UTC) FILETIME=[3EC05000:01CB297E]
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:13:55 -0000

AUTH48 is a formal RFC Editor state, as you should know. I
believe that 48 did originally refer to 48 hours, but that's
not the point (though it is a strong hint). The point is what
AUTH48 covers, which is not a technical rewrite. 

What RFC did or does stand for is irrelevant to this.

Christopher Dearlove
Technology Leader, Communications Group
Networks, Security and Information Systems Department
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194  Fax: +44 1245 242124

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87,
Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexandru Petrescu [] 
Sent: 22 July 2010 10:07
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)

                    *** WARNING ***

  This message has originated outside your organisation,
  either from an external partner or the Global Internet. 
      Keep this in mind if you answer this message.

Le 22/07/2010 10:47, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) a écrit :
> Alexandru (But I'm just quoting this for convenience. It's not really
> specific to this text.)
>> It could be solved by simply saying that "link-local addresses can
>> and are being used by routing protocols and stateless and stateful
>> address auto-configuration" and "IPv4 link-local addresses are in
>> widespread
> use
>> on e.g. Bluetooth with ActiveSync on numerous small wireless
>> mobile devices; OSs in widespread use self-configure IPv4 and IPv6
>> link-local addresses upon startup, w/o means to forbid this self
>> configuration".
> This is a very worrying trend. This document is in AUTH48,

48... 48 hours you mean?

> it's been accepted by the WG and the IESG. Even the original edits
> proposed (especially the third) were beyond what I understand what
> AUTH48 is about, which is minor editorial changes. Now we are
> discussing a title change and fundamental wording that took years to
> thrash out a compromise that can't possibly be overturned in an
> AUTH48 context. I think it's time to make either the original first
> two edits, or no edits at all, and issue. Anyone who wants to propose
> an alternative addressing model can write a new Internet Draft and
> push it down the Independent Submission track.


And an RFC is a Request For Comments.



This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.