Re: WG ACTION: 1 week last call on [LL41] Broadcast text for IPv4 LL

This one seems non-controversial, and does clear up the text. I doubt 
implementers would have gotten it wrong, but it doesn't hurt to be careful 
and tighten up the wording.

At 10:36 AM 3/17/2004, you wrote:

>Please respond to the mailing list if you have comments on this
>document by 24 Mar 2004.  If no comments are received, the proposed text
>will be accepted.
>
>
>LL41
>
>Description of Issue: Broadcast text for IPv4 LL
>Submitter Name:       Bill Fenner & Margaret Wasserman
>Submitter Email:
>Date submitted:       Feb 20, 2004
>Reference:
>(T=tech, E=edit):     T
>Priority (S must, 1 Should, 2 May fix): 1
>Section:               2.6.2
>Rationale/Explanation:
>
>Bill Fenner wrote:
>2.6.2 says
>
>   ...if the destination address is in the
>   169.254/16 prefix (including the 169.254.255.255 broadcast address),
>   then the sender MUST ARP for the destination address and then send
>   its packet directly to the destination on the same physical link.
>
>This sounds like it's saying that 169.254.255.255 is not to be treated
>as a broadcast address, but it describes it as "the .. broadcast
>address".  Potentially confusing.
>
>This is not a DISCUSS because this is a relatively minor issue in a
>document that I don't want to prevent from moving forward, but if it
>is going to be spun for something else (or even if this can be handled
>in AUTH48) I'd be happier.
>
>Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>
>   In section 2.6.2 "Forwarding Rules", the document says:
>
>   "Whichever interface is used, if the destination address is in the
>   169.254/16 prefix (including the 169.254.255.255 broadcast address),
>   then the sender MUST ARP for the destination address and then send
>   its packet directly to the destination on the same physical link.
>   This MUST be done whether the interface is configured with a Link-
>   Local or a routable IPv4 address."
>
>       I don't think that the above paragraph is intended to indicate
>       that an ARP should be sent for every link-local packet, but
>       it could be read that way.  In particular, it doesn't seem
>       correct to ARP for a broadcast address.  Also, it should be
>       okay (AFAIK) to use a normal ARP cache for these addresses,
>       right?
>
>Long Description:
>Proposed Change:
>
>Omit 'broadcast address' in the text above - which becomes:
>
>   ...if the destination address is in the
>   169.254/16 prefix (excluding the address 169.254.255.255, which is
>   the broadcast address for the Link-Local prefix), then the sender
>   MUST ARP for the destination address and then send its packet
>   directly to the destination on the same physical link.
>
>----
>Erik