Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL70] DNAv4 normative or informative?

I agree that as it stands the reference is normative.

We could get around this by making the definition more vague:

Change:
   A "valid routable address" is a routable address that passes the
   reachability test described in section 2 of "Detection of Network
   Attachment (DNA) in IPv4" [DNAv4].

to:
   "valid routable address": The determination of whether a routable
   address is valid will vary with the network infrastructure and
   system context. A useful guide is provided by the reachability
   test described in section 2 of "Detection of Network
   Attachment (DNA) in IPv4" [DNAv4] which is performed by attempting
   to verify reachability of the default gateway(s).

Philip



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Erik Guttman" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 11:26 PM
Subject: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL70] DNAv4 normative or informative?


> 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.
> 
> [ll70]
> 
> Description of Issue: DNAv4 normative or informative?
> 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: References
> Rationale/Explanation:
> Lengthy Description:
> 
> [Stuart]
> 
> >[DNAv4]   Aboba, B., "Detection of Network Attachment (DNA) in IPv4",
> >           draft-ietf-dhc-dna-ipv4-06.txt, Internet draft (work in
> >           progress), March 2004.
> 
> Is this normative or informative?
> 
> If ICMP is normative, this should be too.
> 
> Or neither should be.
> 
> [Erik]
> 
> Why do you say that?  The only places we mention DNAv4 is in connection
> with DHCPv4.  If the IESG is happy with the informative reference
> categorization, so am I.  Adding this to the Normative reference section
> would delay publication of IPv4LL till DNAv4 is done.  I do not believe
> DNAv4 will complete within a year.
> 
> [Stuart]
> 
> I disagee.
> 
>     For these
>     reasons, a host SHOULD NOT have both a valid routable address and an
>     IPv4 Link-Local address configured on the same interface.
> 
>     A "valid routable address" is a routable address that passes the
>     reachability test described in section 2 of "Detection of Network
>     Attachment (DNA) in IPv4" [DNAv4].
> 
> To implement this "SHOULD NOT" requirement, an implementation has to also
> implement [DNAv4] to determine what's a "valid routable address".
> 
> Hence, normative reference (or the "SHOULD NOT" prohibition could be
> removed or refined to not depend on DNAv4).
> 
> [Erik]
> 
> Hmmm.  Do you realize you want to raise the bar for the publishing
> of this document beyond what the IESG has called for.  This change
> of category may well result in tens of months delay of publication of this RFC.
> 
> Can we change the 'is' verb in the second cited sentence to one
> that reads 'may be determined' and add some text from DNAv4 with
> an informative reference 'for further information'?  That is the
> way specific citations to 'upcoming work' are usually handled in
> order to avoid creating document dependencies.
> 
> Requested Change:
> 
> Move DNAv4 from informative to normative.
>