Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL55] 'Prevent' is too strong

"Reduce the risk" doesn't seem strong enough to me.

How about:

    To preclude use of IPv4 Link-Local addresses in off-link
    communication, the following cautionary measures are advised:

- 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.
>
>[LL55]
>
>Description of Issue:           'Prevent' is too strong
>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:                        1.4
>Rationale/Explanation:
>Lengthy Description:
>
>[Stuart]
>
>>    In order to prevent use of IPv4 Link-Local addresses in off-link
>>    communication, the following cautionary measures are advised:
>
>"prevent" is a bit strong. How about:
>
>>    In order to reduce the risk of accidental use of IPv4 Link-Local
>>    addresses in off-link communication, the following cautionary
>>    measures are advised:
>
>[Erik]
>
>We seek the unequivocal prevention of IPv4 LL addressses use off-link
>not to reduction of the risk of their accidental use off-link.
>
>[Stuart]
>
>You seek unequivocal prevention, but the cautionary measures you advise
>don't deliver that.
>
>Therefore, stating that the advised cautionary measures "prevent use of
>IPv4 Link-Local addresses in off-link communication" is demonstrably
>false. They reduce the risk, but they don't prevent it. Either we need
>stronger measures, or a weaker statement. Something needs to be fixed.
>
>The IP address of my printer is 169.254.207.63.
>
>There, I just used a Link-Local address in off-link communication.
>
>Can you propose a software measure that would have unequivocally
>prevented me from doing that?
>
>No.
>
>The general containment problem is known to be unsolvable.
>
>There's no reason to have this kind of mistake in the document.
>
>[Erik]
>
>     The problem is the word 'prevent' for you means 'absolutely prevent'
>     where others have not found this to be the case.  Merriam Webster
>     a) to deprive of power or hoep of acting or succeeding
>     b) to keep from happening or existing <steps to prevent war>
>     c) to hold or keep back:  HINDER, STOP
>
>    'in order to prevent... the following cautionary measures are advised'
>     means 'We advise measures to avoid ...' not 'here is something you can
>     do to absolutely  make it impossible for ... to ever occur.'
>
>     I find your suggested wording unacceptable because we are not seeking
>     to reduce the likelihood of off-link use.  This implies that in some
>     sense off-link use is OK.
>
>Requested Change:
>
>In 1.4 change
>
>>    In order to prevent use of IPv4 Link-Local addresses in off-link
>>    communication, the following cautionary measures are advised:
>
>to
>
>>    In order to reduce the risk of accidental use of IPv4 Link-Local
>>    addresses in off-link communication, the following cautionary
>>    measures are advised: