WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL54] Consistent terminology for out of scope

Please post discussion of this issue to the mailing list over the 
next two weeks
ending May 18, 2004.  In order to accept this issued, we will need a strong WG
consensus given that this is very late in the process.

Please see http://www.drizzle.org/~aboba/ZEROCONF/issues.html for a list of
current issues and their status.

[LL54]

Description of Issue:		Consistent terminology for out of scope
Submitter Name:		Stuart Cheshire
Submitter Email Address:	[email protected]
Date first submitted:		04 May 04
Reference:
Comment Type ['t'ech|'e'dit]:	e
Prio ['S' Must|1 should|2 may]:	1
Section:			1.3, 2.2.1
Rationale/Explanation:
Lengthy Description:

Page 5 says:

>    Link-layer technologies that do not support ARP may be able to use
>    other techniques for determining whether a particular IP address is
>    currently in use. However, the application of claim-and-defend
>    mechanisms to such networks is outside the scope of this document.

Page 10/11 say:

>    On a link-layer such as IEEE 802 that supports ARP, conflict
>    detection is done using ARP probes. On link-layer technologies that
>    do not support ARP other techniques may be available for determining
>    whether a particular IPv4 address is currently in use.  However, the
>    application of claim-and-defend mechanisms to such networks is left
>    to a future document.

Lets be consistent. Can we pick one phrase? Either "outside the scope of
this document" or "left to a future document".

Requested Change:

Use consistent terminology: 'out of scope' in each case.