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

> From: "Stuart Cheshire" <[email protected]>
>
> >   Field experience has shown that modifying the DHCP state machine
> >   in an attempt to make IPv4 Link-Local more reliable does not work
> >   - reliability of DHCP service is significantly reduced.
> 
> I have no objection to giving our best known advice:
> 
> >    A device that implements both IPv4 Link-Local and a DHCPv4 client
> >    should not alter  the behavior of the DHCPv4 client to accommodate
> 
> My objection is to inventing fictitious "early implementations" or "field 
> experience" to apparently back up our advice.

I had taken it on good faith in the original authors that it was the case that this was based on experience - it has been there since before I joined in. My experience with some Windows implementations certainly suggests that the IPv4LL and DHCP are entangled but this is purely anecdotal and could be caused by other things - I have no access to the Windows code to confirm this or otherwise and would not want to. If you are correct that it is fiction then I agree that this assertion could be removed. However, why wasn't it weeded out at draft 2 or 3?

> This is strangely topical -- the US president and the US and UK 
> governments are taking a lot of criticism right now for the alleged 
> fabrication of supporting evidence to justify their chosen course of 
> action.

So Stuart which side are you on? - are you with Dubya or are you with the terrorists? (no you shouldn't answer!)

Philip