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

I support the proposed change.

- Ralph

At 01:22 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.
>
>[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.