Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modifications (Fwd: Forgotone [Was: RFC 5889)

"Charles E. Perkins" <> Tue, 03 August 2010 17:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB4A53A6950 for <>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 10:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.996
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.604, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r+JQPz119IpX for <>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 10:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7D383A693A for <>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 10:56:02 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327;; b=AMiwYxtfJst80PSQnKCuqZoclvdsNgZELizSYX5vWn1hoDTerqaJWhVCOi4VPlmp; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [] (helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <>) id 1OgLj5-0001mE-0t; Tue, 03 Aug 2010 13:56:31 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 10:56:29 -0700
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <>
Organization: Wichorus Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100711 Thunderbird/3.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ryuji Wakikawa <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f5278a1931cf0d85af84e993a3a0fd6cf65350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
Cc:, Autoconf Chairs <>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modifications (Fwd: Forgotone [Was: RFC 5889)
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: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 17:56:03 -0000

Hello folks,

I disagree that the addressing model and the
implications upon link-local addressability
are any less valid for hosts than they are
for routers.

The danger I see is that the title change
could at any time be cited as justification
for restricting the work of [autoconf]
so that only routers can get addresses.
This sort of political device is often able
to overcome any objection that the earlier
language in previous documents was having
unintentional side-effects (once they are

The point was raised during the meeting that
any router could pretend to be a host by simply
setting willingness == 0.

It was not explained why an energy-constrained
device should have to implement thousands of lines
of code just so it could have the privilege of
being called a router when it should never ever
be configured to forward packets.

But perhaps I digress from the point of the
consensus call.

Charlie P.

On 8/2/2010 5:14 PM, Ryuji Wakikawa wrote:
> Hello all,
> At the IETF78 meeting, we had the rough consensus to adapt
> the Erik's modification for RFC5889 in the room.
> To confirm our consensus on the list, we ask the WG consensus call
> for adaption of Erik's modification for RFC5889.
> The detailed modifications can be found at the attached email below. Thanks Erik.
> Please vote for your opinion before "Aug 9th 12:00PM (PST)".
> If you have any objections, please give us clear reason and propose your text.
> thanks in advance,
> Thomas, ryuji