WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL70] DNAv4 normative or informative?

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.

[ll70]

Description of Issue:		DNAv4 normative or informative?
Submitter Name:                 Stuart Cheshire
Submitter Email Address:        [email protected]
Date first submitted:           04 May 04
Reference:
Comment Type ['t'ech|'e'dit]:	t
Prio ['S' Must|1 should|2 may]:	S
Section:			References
Rationale/Explanation:
Lengthy Description:

[Stuart]

>[DNAv4]   Aboba, B., "Detection of Network Attachment (DNA) in IPv4",
>           draft-ietf-dhc-dna-ipv4-06.txt, Internet draft (work in
>           progress), March 2004.

Is this normative or informative?

If ICMP is normative, this should be too.

Or neither should be.

[Erik]

Why do you say that?  The only places we mention DNAv4 is in connection
with DHCPv4.  If the IESG is happy with the informative reference
categorization, so am I.  Adding this to the Normative reference section
would delay publication of IPv4LL till DNAv4 is done.  I do not believe
DNAv4 will complete within a year.

[Stuart]

I disagee.

    For these
    reasons, a host SHOULD NOT have both a valid routable address and an
    IPv4 Link-Local address configured on the same interface.

    A "valid routable address" is a routable address that passes the
    reachability test described in section 2 of "Detection of Network
    Attachment (DNA) in IPv4" [DNAv4].

To implement this "SHOULD NOT" requirement, an implementation has to also
implement [DNAv4] to determine what's a "valid routable address".

Hence, normative reference (or the "SHOULD NOT" prohibition could be
removed or refined to not depend on DNAv4).

[Erik]

Hmmm.  Do you realize you want to raise the bar for the publishing
of this document beyond what the IESG has called for.  This change
of category may well result in tens of months delay of publication of this RFC.

Can we change the 'is' verb in the second cited sentence to one
that reads 'may be determined' and add some text from DNAv4 with
an informative reference 'for further information'?  That is the
way specific citations to 'upcoming work' are usually handled in
order to avoid creating document dependencies.

Requested Change:

Move DNAv4 from informative to normative.