Re: WG ACTION: 1 week continued discussion [LL63] Text should be more explicit

> Please indicate which of the following options you prefer.

First choice D, second C, third A, all are acceptable to me. B is not as =
it loses useful advice.

Philip

----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Erik Guttman" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 4:55 PM
Subject: WG ACTION: 1 week continued discussion [LL63] Text should be =
more explicit


>=20
> LL63:
>=20
> This issue remains open for discussion till June 2, 2004.
>=20
> Note that the text in this section was created as a result of
> collaboration with Ted Lemon and others in the DHC WG.  We cannot view
> it as having been added erroneously or accidentally.
>=20
> Please indicate which of the following options you prefer.
>=20
> A) Leave the text as
>=20
>    A device that implements both IPv4 Link-Local and a DHCPv4 client
>    should not alter  the behavior of the DHCPv4 client to accommodate
>    IPv4 Link-Local  configuration. In particular configuration of an
>    IPv4 Link-Local address,  whether or not a DHCP server is currently
>    responding, is not sufficient  reason to unconfigure a valid DHCP
>    lease, to stop the DHCP client from  attempting to acquire a new IP
>    address, to change DHCP timeouts or to  change the behavior of the
>    DHCP state machine in any other way.
>=20
>    Several early implementations of IPv4 Link-Local have modified the
>    DHCP  state machine in an attempt to make IPv4 Link-Local more
>    reliable, and the  field experience we have gained from this has
>    shown that it does not work  - reliability of DHCP service is
>    significantly reduced.   If increased reliability of IPv4 =
Link-Local
>    is desired, we recommend that the IPv4 Link-Local state machine =
track
>    the DHCP client state machine and, in cases where it is not certain
>    that the DHCP-assigned address is correct, the  IPv4 Link-Local =
state
>    machine acquire an IPv4 Link-Local address without causing the DHCP
>    state machine to relinquish its address.
>=20
> B) Replace the text in A) with
>=20
>    A device that implements both IPv4 Link-Local and a DHCPv4 client
>    should not alter the behavior of the DHCPv4 client to accommodate
>    IPv4 Link-Local configuration. In particular configuration of an
>    IPv4 Link-Local address, whether or not a DHCP server is currently
>    responding, is not sufficient reason to unconfigure a valid DHCP
>    lease, to stop the DHCP client from attempting to acquire a new IP
>    address, to change DHCP timeouts or to change the behavior of the
>    DHCP state machine in any other way.
>=20
> C) Replace the text in A) with
>=20
>    A device that implements both IPv4 Link-Local and a DHCPv4 client
>    should not alter  the behavior of the DHCPv4 client to accommodate
>    IPv4 Link-Local  configuration. In particular configuration of an
>    IPv4 Link-Local address,  whether or not a DHCP server is currently
>    responding, is not sufficient  reason to unconfigure a valid DHCP
>    lease, to stop the DHCP client from  attempting to acquire a new IP
>    address, to change DHCP timeouts or to  change the behavior of the
>    DHCP state machine in any other way.
>=20
>    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.  If increased
>    reliability of IPv4 Link-Local is desired, we recommend that the
>    IPv4 Link-Local state machine track the DHCP client state machine
>    and, in cases where it is not certain that the DHCP-assigned
>    address is correct, the IPv4 Link-Local state machine acquire an
>    IPv4 Link-Local address without causing the DHCP state machine to
>    relinquish its address.
>=20
> D) Replace A) with
>=20
>    As documented in Appendix A, early implementations of IPv4
>    Link-Local have modified the DHCP state machine.  Field experience
>    shows that these modifications reduce the reliability of the DHCP
>    service.
>=20
>    A device that implements both IPv4 Link-Local and a DHCPv4 client
>    should not alter the behavior of the DHCPv4 client to accommodate
>    IPv4 Link-Local configuration. In particular configuration of an
>    IPv4 Link-Local address, whether or not a DHCP server is currently
>    responding, is not sufficient reason to unconfigure a valid DHCP
>    lease, to stop the DHCP client from attempting to acquire a new IP
>    address, to change DHCP timeouts or to change the behavior of the
>    DHCP state machine in any other way.
>=20
>    Further discussion of this issue is provided in [DNAv4]."
>=20
> Erik Guttman
> ZEROCONF WG Chair
>