Re: resolution of LL52 LL54 LL55 LL56 LL57 LL58 LL59 LL60 LL61 LL62LL64 LL65 LL66 LL67 LL68 LL69

In looking over LL56, I think the debate disclosed that the text
really was unclear.  So while there may not have been consensus for
Stuart's proposed change, I do think that the text needs to be
clarified.

For example, the text states:

"IPv4 addresses and names which can only be resolved on the local link
SHOULD NOT be forwarded, they SHOULD only be sent when a Link-Local
address is used as the source address.  This strong advice should hinder
limited scope addresses and names from leaving the context in
which they apply."

This text really is unclear.  It could be read (and was ready by Stuart
and myself) as implying that an LLMNR Response (even one not
including a Link-Local address in the RRs) SHOULD only be
sent when a Link-Local address is used as the source address.

The issue text appears to imply that in fact the following was meant:

"IPv4 addresses and names which can only be resolved on the local link
SHOULD NOT be forwarded beyond the local link.  IPv4 Link-Local addresses
SHOULD only be sent when a Link-Local address is used as the source
address.  This strong advice should hinder limited scope addresses
and names from leaving the context in which they apply."