Re: WG ACTION: 1 week to discuss [LL46] Text implies limited applicability

At 11:01 AM 3/17/2004, Erik Guttman wrote:

>Please respond to this issue in the next week ending 24 Mar 04.  If no
>comments are received we will assume that this issue will be accepted
>and the change made
>
>----
>
>LL46
>
>Description of Issue: Text implies limited applicability
>Submitter Name:       Russ Housley
>Submitter Email:
>Date submitted:       20 Feb 04
>Reference:
>(T=tech, E=edit):
>Priority (S must, 1 Should, 2 May fix):
>Section:              2.2
>Rationale/Explanation:
>
>   Section 2.2.  It seems that this technique should work for 802.11 ad
>hoc
>   networking too.  An entry in the list that does not imply an
>infrastructure
>   of any kind is desirable.
>
>Long Description:
>Proposed Change:
>
>Change:
>       IEEE 802 hardware link-state change that indicates that a
>            cable was attached.
>
>To:
>       IEEE 802 hardware link-state change that indicates that a
>            cable was attached.  (This example does not imply that
>            IPv4LL configuration is inapplicable to wireless
>            interfaces).
>

802.1x also interferes here.

What we should be saying is that 802 hardware link change appropriate for 
media type and security policy mechanisms all apply. I haven't formulated 
words for this, however what I'm getting at is any wireless or wired 
network implementing access mechanisms may affect the ability of an end 
station to get a usable IP address (whether RFC1918/NAT or public, but 
not-LL) pending authentication, media access control (association with an 
access point, peer-to-peer wireless, wired connection, etc.) and so forth. 
Let's try to avoid references to wires other than as an example of a 
transition that might trigger an event.