WG ACTION: ACCEPT [LL42] Category inconsistency for DNS / IPv4LL

Action: Accept this change.

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.