Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL57] Straightforward editorial fixes

Comments interspersed. One or two are genuine editorial mistakes, several appear to be pedantic filibusters!

> >1.9.  When to configure a IPv4 Link-Local address
> 
> Search and replace "a IP" with "an IP"

[philip]
I'm comfortable with either.

> 
> ---
> 
> [Stuart]
> 
> >2.4.  Announcing an Address
> >
> >    The host MUST then announce its claimed address by broadcasting
> >    PROBE_N ARP announcements, spaced PROBE_MAX seconds apart.
> 
> Change to:
> 
> >  ANNOUNCE_N ARP announcements, spaced ANNOUNCE_INTERVAL seconds apart
> 
> Add to section 9:
> 
> ANNOUNCE_N        2
> ANNOUNCE_INTERVAL 2 seconds

[philip]
The change is probably better. I believe this is more than an editorial change since it decouples ANNOUNCE_INTERVAL from PROBE_MAX.

> 
> ---
> 
> Section 2.5
> 
> >    (b) If a host currently has active TCP connections or other reasons
> >    to prefer to keep the same IPv4 address, and it has not seen any
> >    other conflicting ARP packets recently (for IEEE 802, within the last
> >    ten seconds) then it MAY elect to attempt to defend its address
> 
> becomes
> 
>     If a host currently has active TCP connections or other reasons
>     to prefer to keep the same IPv4 address, and it has not seen any
>     other conflicting ARP packets recently (for IEEE 802, within the last
> |  WATCH_WAIT seconds) then it MAY elect to attempt to defend its address, by
>     recording the time that the conflicting ARP packet was received, and
>     then broadcasting one single ARP announcement, giving its own IP and
>     hardware addresses as the sender addresses of the ARP.  Having done
>     this, the host can then continue to use the address normally without
>     any further special action.  However, if this is not the first
>     conflicting ARP packet the host has seen, and the time recorded for
>     the previous conflicting ARP packet is recent (within WATCH_WAIT
>     seconds for IEEE 802) then the host MUST immediately cease using this
>     address and configure a new IPv4 Link-Local address as described
>     above.  This is necessary to ensure that two hosts do not get stuck
>     in an endless loop with both hosts trying to defend the same address.
> 


[philip]
I see no need for the change.

However, if we are to parameterize WATCH_WAIT as proposed we should do it properly. The text should read:

"...and it has not seen any other conflicting ARP packets within WATCH_WAIT seconds then it MAY elect..."

and in section 9:
WATCH_WAIT    10 seconds for IEEE802

> ---
> 
> 2.6.2
> 
> >    Whichever interface is used, if the destination address is in the
> >    169.254/16 prefix (excluding the address 169.254.255, which is the
> >    broadcast address for the Link-Local prefix), then the sender MUST
> 
> 169.254.244
> 
> becomes
> 
> 169.254.255.255


[philip]
Agreed

> 
> ---
> 
> 3.1
> 
> >  >   This answer is usually answered by referring to a routing table,
> >  >   which expresses which interface (with which address) to send, and how
> 
> becomes
> 
>    This question is usually answered by referring to a routing table,
>    which expresses on which interface (with which address) to send, and how


[philip]
Agree changing "answer" to "question".
Neutral on adding "on" - it is a very pedantic change.

> 
> ---
> 
> from:
> 
> >  >3.4.  Unintentional Autoimmunity
> 
> to:
> 
> >  >3.4.  Unintentional Autoimmune Response


[philip]
This change adds nothing so don't make it.

> 
> ---
> 
> 6.1
> From:
> 
>     IPv4 Link-Local addresses used by an application may change over
>     time. Some application software encountering an address change will
>     fail. For example, client TCP connections will fail,
> 
> to:
> 
>     IPv4 Link-Local addresses used by an application may change over
>     time. Some application software encountering an address change will
>     fail. For example, existing client TCP connections will be aborted,


[philip]
It's way too late to make trivial changes like this - there is no grammatical error, the difference in meaning is minimal and it is an example not a technical definition.

> 
> ---
> 
> 6.2
> From:
> 
> >    If the FTP client transmits its passive IPv4
> 
> to:
> 
> >    If the FTP client transmits its stale out-of-date passive IPv4


[philip]
It's way too late to make trivial changes like this - there is no grammatical error, the difference in meaning is minimal and it is an example not a technical definition.