Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL59] Wireless comment not needed

I do not agree with the suggested change.  The sentence is harmless and
satisfies a requirement from the IESG.

- Ralph

At 01:04 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.
>
>[LL59]
>
>Description of Issue:           Wireless comment not needed
>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]: 2
>Section:                        2.2
>Rationale/Explanation:
>Lengthy Description:
>
>[Stuart]
>
>>  (This example does
>>            not imply that IPv4 Link-Local configuration is inapplicable
>>            to wireless interfaces).
>
>Is this sentence necessary?
>
>[Erik]
>
>Yes, it is needed.  This response comes from an IESG comment which would
>have been a 'discuss' comment and slowed down the progress of the
>document.  Further, this changed text was approved in the WG last call
>process last month.
>
>[Stuart]
>
>Just for my own benefit, could you please explain what that sentence is
>talking about? Why single out wireless? What about powerline? Infrared?
>HPNA? IP-over-USB?
>
>[Erik]
>
>    This sentence addresses the concern of an IESG member.  The
>     proper time to engage them is during the interval in which they
>     are reviewing the document.
>
>     The sentence is harmless, though not very useful.  Including it
>     was necessary to get the document approved.
>
>Requested Change:
>
>Omit
>
>>  (This example does
>>            not imply that IPv4 Link-Local configuration is inapplicable
>>            to wireless interfaces).