Re: WG ACTION: 1 week discussion [LL42] Category inconsistency for DNS /IPv4LL

Change to MUST NOT is appropriate and consistent.

At 10:39 AM 3/17/2004, you wrote:

>Please send any comments you may have on this issue to the mailing list
>by March 24, 2004.  If no comments are received, this change will be
>accepted.
>
>----
>
>LL42
>
>Description of Issue: Category inconsistency for DNS / IPv4LL
>prohibition
>Submitter Name:       Ted Hardie & Margaret Wasserman
>Submitter Email:
>Date submitted:       20 Feb 04
>Reference:
>(T=tech, E=edit):     T
>Priority (S must, 1 Should, 2 May fix): S
>Section:              2.9, 1.4
>Rationale/Explanation:
>Long Description:
>
>Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>Section 1.4 says :
>
>   c. Link-Local IPv4 addresses MUST NOT be configured in the DNS.
>
>
>Section 2.9 says:
>
>   As Link-Local IPv4 addresses may change at any time and have limited
>   scope, storing Link-Local IPv4 addresses in the DNS is not well
>   understood and is NOT RECOMMENDED.
>
>RFC 2119, Section 4, says "NOT RECOMMENDED" is the same strength
>as "SHOULD NOT".  The authors and working group need to decide
>whether this prohibition is a MUST or a SHOULD.
>
>Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>         This document says, at one point, that storing LL addresses
>         in the DNS is not recommended.  But, later it says that
>         you MUST NOT store LL addresses in the DNS.  Which is it?
>Proposed Change:
>
>Change section 2.9 to be 'MUST NOT'.  The decision to for the MUST
>NOT text in section 1.4 was made after Section 2.9.  The new text
>for section 2.9 would be:
>
>   As Link-Local IPv4 addresses may change at any time and have limited
>   scope, Link-Local IPv4 address MUST NOT be stored in the DNS.
>
>----
>Erik