Re: Please review draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-15.txt !

This is clearly an editorial mixup rather than a technical disagreement.


I mildly prefer changing the name START_WAIT to PROBE_WAIT in two places =
(2.2.1 & 9) - this does not affect the standard but is an editorial =
improvement.

I mildly prefer changing the name ANNOUNCE_N to ANNOUNCE_NUM in three =
places (1.3, 2.4 & 9) - this does not affect the standard but is an =
editorial improvement.

The time in section 2.2.1 (currently called DEFEND_INTERVAL) after the =
last probe has been 2 seconds for a long time (many drafts). Changing it =
to 10 seconds was almost certainly an accident and should be rectified. =
I support making this 2 seconds (not 1 second) in section 9.

ANNOUNCE_WAIT is a very reasonable name for this constant since the next =
step in the process is to announce the address. I support changing the =
name DEFEND_INTERVAL to ANNOUNCE_WAIT in three places (2.2.1 twice & 9).

I mildly prefer changing WATCH_WAIT to DEFEND_INTERVAL since this is =
marginally clearer (it occurs in the section on defending an address).

I do not support the current text around WATCH_WAIT - separate mail to =
follow.

regards,
Philip Nye