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

Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name> Thu, 22 July 2010 09:16 UTC

Return-Path: <ulrich@herberg.name>
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 F3C0A3A6A40 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 Y6dWjQ95EoVd for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1DC83A68A2 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:16:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwz7 with SMTP id 7so841189bwz.31 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:16:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.70.201 with SMTP id e9mr1084665bkj.141.1279790190059; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:16:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.23.83 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:16:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4C480A3F.3000103@gmail.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> <4C480A3F.3000103@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:16:29 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTikte6xJJpnAkW-oAD504F0SFHkURdQSNDNEPOLq@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, "Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
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 09:16:18 -0000

Alex,

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Alexandru Petrescu
<alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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?

Please have a look at http://www.rfc-editor.org/pubprocess.html (in
particular at the bottom of the webpage)

>
>> 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.


I fully agree with Chris. Changing major content of a document in
AUTH48 is not a good idea.


>
> Sure.
>
> And an RFC is a Request For Comments.

yes, so? You may also be interested in reading
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt


Ulrich