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

Personally, I don't think any of these changes are necessary - this clearly appears in an "examples include" section and the next line mentions wireless networking. Anyone who cannot extrapolate from examples will not get far with this or any other standard.

I am happy with any of the proposed changes but lets not get bogged down.

Philip


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel Senie" <[email protected]>
To: "Erik Guttman" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 7:46 PM
Subject: 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.
>