Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL67] Fix clause which forbids routable to LL communication

I support the proposed change.

Philip

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Erik Guttman" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 11:22 PM
Subject: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL67] Fix clause which forbids routable to LL communication


> 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.
> 
> [LL67]
> 
> Description of Issue: Fix clause which forbids routable to 
> LL communication
> Submitter Name:                 Stuart Cheshire
> Submitter Email Address:        [email protected]
> Date first submitted:           04 May 04
> Reference:
> Comment Type ['t'ech|'e'dit]: t
> Prio ['S' Must|1 should|2 may]: S
> Section: 6.2
> Rationale/Explanation:
> Lengthy Description:
> 
> [Stuart]
> 
> >    IPv4 Link-Local addresses MUST NOT be forwarded via an application
> >    protocol (for example in a URL), to a destination which is not Link-
> >    Local, on the same link.  This is discussed further in Section 2.9
> >    and 3.
> 
> How about:
> >    IPv4 Link-Local addresses MUST NOT be forwarded via an application
> >    protocol (for example in a URL), to a destination which is not
> >    on the same link.  This is discussed further in Section 2.9 and 3.
> 
> [Erik]
> 
> Your sentence means something entirely different than what is in the
> document.  In your text host A with LL address a could send 'a' in an
> application protocol to host B with a routable address.  In the current
> document, this would not be allowed.  We want proper interaction
> between hosts A and B with as few restrictions as possible without
> disruptive consequences.  That is the fine line we've had to walk for
> the past 5 years.  I personally prefer your wording (and its meaning) to
> what the document currently says.  To open this up would require us to
> go back to discussion, last calls, etc. however.
> 
> [Stuart]
> 
> As written, other places in the draft allow routable-to-LL communication,
> but this "MUST NOT" prohibits that. A routable device can't send packets
> to an LL device unless it knows the LL device's LL address, but how can a
> routable device learn the LL device's LL address, if sending an LL
> address to a non-LL destination address is prohibited?
> 
> [Erik]
> 
> This is clearly a technical revision we need to consider.  I agree
> that we should make this change.
> 
> Requested Change:
> 
> Section 6.2, From:
> 
> >    IPv4 Link-Local addresses MUST NOT be forwarded via an application
> >    protocol (for example in a URL), to a destination which is not Link-
> >    Local, on the same link.  This is discussed further in Section 2.9
> >    and 3.
> 
> To:
> 
> >    IPv4 Link-Local addresses MUST NOT be forwarded via an application
> >    protocol (for example in a URL), to a destination which is not
> >    on the same link.  This is discussed further in Section 2.9 and 3.
> 
>