Re: WG consensus action: ACCEPT LL34 better transition to routable from v4LL using DHCP

On Tuesday, September 23, 2003, at 05:14 AM, Erik Guttman wrote:
> The text supplied by Bernard has the property that it does not
> specify any new behavior for DHCP.  The new text makes it clear
> that an implementation of IPv4LL must attempt to obtain configuration
> via DHCP according to the DHCP specification, even if it has failed
> to in the past.  I think this satisfies Ted's concern:
>
> Ted Lemon wrote:
> > The correct fix is to make sure that the DHCP client does not in fact
> > modify its behaviour to make IPv4ll work, but rather to modify IPv4ll
> > so that it doesn't interfere with the operation of the DHCP client.

The new text that Bernard has supplied, at least as specified in your 
proposed resolution for LL34, does not seem to address the problem at 
all.   The problem is that right now the IPv4ll protocol specification 
creates a situation in which there is an incentive to break the DHCP 
client in order to get correct IPv4ll behavior.   My goal is not to 
break the DHCP client less.   It is to not break it at all.   If you 
don't agree with this goal, can you please try to build consensus by 
explaining why you don't agree with it?

Also, I think  that you should withdraw the statement that your 
proposed solution to LL34 has been accepted, since there was no 
discussion on it, and thus no opportunity for consensus.   I certainly 
do not agree that it solves the stated problem.    Possibly I am 
reading too much into the problem statement, but if so, I think we need 
a new discussion item: "IPv4LL state machine must not place 
requirements on DHCPv4 state machine."