Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL63] Text could be more specific

I can't respond to this issue without text suggesting what would be 
acceptable wording.

- Ralph

At 01:17 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.
>
>[LL63]
>
>Description of Issue:           Text should be more specific
>Submitter Name:                 Stuart Cheshire
>Submitter Email Address:        [email protected]
>Date first submitted:           04 May 04
>Reference:                      LL40
>Comment Type ['t'ech|'e'dit]:   e
>Prio ['S' Must|1 should|2 may]: 1
>Section:                        2.11
>Rationale/Explanation:
>Lengthy Description:
>
>[Stuart]
>
>>    Several early implementations of IPv4 Link-Local have modified the
>>    DHCP  state machine in an attempt to make IPv4 Link-Local more
>>    reliable, and the  field experience we have gained from this has
>>    shown that it does not work  - reliability of DHCP service is
>>    significantly reduced.
>
>Is this referring to some Windows bug? It's too vague. We should either
>make it concrete enough that the reader understands the specific example
>that's being given, or delete it.
>
>[Erik]
>
>This text was very difficult to craft and resulted in 3 successive WG
>last call discussions.  Revision of this text, or worse, its removal,
>would cause the document to become unacceptable to the DHC WG.
>
>See LL40 especially.
>
>[Stuart]
>
>Okay, I'll be more blunt: This statement is false. It is an outright lie.
>Why put known falsehood in the document? If I'm wrong, then please state
>which "early implementations of IPv4 Link-Local have modified the DHCP
>state machine in an attempt to make IPv4 Link-Local more reliable" and
>then I'll be happy with the text.
>
>[Erik]
>
>You don't like the word 'several' in the cited section, is that
>the issue?   I have no objects changing the word 'several' to 'at least
>one'
>
>Requested Change:
>
>TEXT NEEDED