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

At 07:40 AM 3/23/2004, Philip Nye wrote:
>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.

In general I agree with you. But since the issue was raised in IESG review, 
I figured we might as well tweak the text to further clarify and make folks 
happy.


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

Agree.


>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.
> >