Re: resolution of LL52 LL54 LL55 LL56 LL57 LL58 LL59 LL60 LL61 LL62 LL64 LL65 LL66 LL67 LL68 LL69
Erik Guttman <[email protected]> Tue, 25 May 2004 18:00:29 +0200 (CEST)
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.zeroconf |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
The resolutions which I included in this message are my reading of the discussion in the preceeding last call periods. If you believe that I have misread the consensus, please bring this up on the working group mailing list. I remind participants that a very high degree of agreement is needed to make a change at this late in the process. I will not be able to respond to the ensuing discussion until Monday 31 May. Best regards, Erik Guttman ZEROCONF WG Chair On Tue, 25 May 2004, Erik Guttman wrote: > > ----- ---------- ------------------------------- > > Issue Type Title Recommend > ----- ---- -------------------------------------------------- --------- > LL52 t Text surrounding RFC 2119 clause is poor Accept > LL53 e Forward references requested Open > LL54 e Consistent terminology for out of scope Accept > LL55 e 'Prevent' is too strong Accept > LL56 t Contradictory text? Reject > LL57 e Straightforward editorial fixes Accept > LL58 t Duplicate inconsistent routable address Accept > definition > LL59 e Wireless comment not needed Accept > LL60 e Forward reference style Reject > LL61 t Remove random wait Accept > LL62 t Do not space probes randomly Reject > LL63 e Text should be more explicit Open > LL64 e Simplify some text Accept > LL65 t need a requirement for multihomed hosts Reject > LL66 t Additional statistical example Reject > LL67 t Fix clause which forbids routable to LL commun- Accept > ication > LL68 e Stress constants are not user configurable Reject > LL69 e Move constants to beginning of doc Reject > LL70 t DNAv4 normative or informative? Open