Re: my response to the proposed changes

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
> >WATCH_WAIT is used in section 2.5 for holding onto one's address after
> >defending it against a potential conflict. This seems OK set at 10 seconds
> >for 802 links.  (I support Philip Nye's suggested modification to 2.5 and
> >WATCH_WAIT's definition in section 9.)
> 
> There is no "holding onto one's address".
> 
> Section 2.5 is about sending retaliatory (defensive) ARPs to reclaim your 
> address when someone else appears to be trying to use it, with the added 
> caveat that there's a very conservative rate limit on these defensive 
> ARPs to prevent horrible network storms.

That is what I mean by holding onto one's address.  The only point where
I think we disagree is that the *text* for WATCH_WAIT is the same as for
DEFENSE_INTERVAL in section 9.  Since both are set at 10 seconds
presently, we are really only disagreeing over which version of the text
is clearer, right?

Best regards,

Erik