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

I agree with the proposed change.

- Ralph

At 01:00 AM 5/5/2004 +0200, Erik Guttman wrote:
>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.