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

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

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.

Sure.

And an RFC is a Request For Comments.

Alex

>