Re: LL70: Use of the term "valid"
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> Tue, 18 May 2004 21:34:32 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.zeroconf |
|---|---|
| Organization | Engineering Arts |
| Message-ID | <001c01c43d17$86e456b0$131010ac@aldebaran> |
> From: "Peter Johansson" <[email protected]> > At 09:47 AM 5/18/2004 -0700, Bernard Aboba wrote: >=20 > >"A "valid routable address" is a routable address which is either=20 > >statically assigned or whose lease has not expired and that passes = the > >reachability test described in section 2 of "Detection of Network=20 > >Attachment (DNA) in IPv4" [DNAv4]." >=20 > I would go the extra step and say: "A routable address is an address = that=20 > is either statically assigned or whose lease has not expired and that=20 > passes the reachability test described in section 2 of "Detection of=20 > Network Attachment (DNA) in IPv4" [DNAv4]." If this change is made, we are back to square one - the protocol depends = on the definition of a routable address and that definition depends on = the reference [DNAv4] which is therefore normative - and is problematic = because it is an unapproved draft. I think that the use of "valid" conveys meaning because it helps people = grasp the idea that a host may have been configured with an address = which was previously valid but although still configured, is no longer = useable because the network has changed (e.g. the host moved to a new = network). This is a common case and there is often good reason not to = simply unconfigure that address because the host may soon be moved back = to a context in which it is valid - meanwhile assigning an IPv4LL = address provides some connectivity. The validity of a configured address is difficult to establish because = the context in which it is intended to operate or becomes invalid can = vary. Therefore I think that all we can do is explain the concept and = present the DNAv4 reachability test as a useful example (informative) = rather than a definition (normative) of validity. I suggested alternative text in an earlier email. > Please also note the grammatical correction, "which" to "that". I would dispute that English grammar is so clear cut. In this context = "that" or "which" both seem acceptable and either conveys the meaning = well so I can happily accept your ammendment - or not. Philip