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

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 22 July 2010 09:07 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20AFD3A69F8 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.831
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.831 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.418, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YXS2NfCyXnLm for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:06:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.166.172.107]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8A553A6A55 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.0) with ESMTP id o6M97C33006897 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:07:12 +0200
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o6M97CrS010235; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:07:12 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.133.173]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id o6M97B87024041; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:07:12 +0200
Message-ID: <4C480A3F.3000103@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:07:11 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
References: <4C2A6BB7.1000900@piuha.net><4C2CFADD.3040909@piuha.net> <4C378C29.2040302@oracle.com><4C4706D8.5040904@piuha.net> <4C473D4C.8050504@gmail.com> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0344F7B9@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
In-Reply-To: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0344F7B9@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:07:00 -0000

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

>