Re: my response to the proposed changes

>The name "DEFEND_INTERVAL" is used in the current draft in section 2.2.1. 
>(There is a proposal to change this name to ANNOUNCE_WAIT). For this 
>reason re-using "DEFEND_INTERVAL" for what is currently WATCH_WAIT is a 
>bad idea however apt the name might be since it is obviously leading to 
>huge confusion.

No. We're not re-using anything that already has established meaning. The 
name "DEFEND_INTERVAL" in Section 2.2.1 was BRAND NEW in draft-15. It was 
a mistake.

In draft-14 I pointed out an editorial issue: That all time values had 
been turned into symbolic constants except for one: the ten-second 
defensive ARP interval in Section 2.5. I thought this was an oversight. I 
suggested that for consistency the minimum defensive ARP interval should 
also be turned into symbolic constant, called DEFEND_INTERVAL. It should 
have been a simple and non-controversial fix.

Erik misunderstood me, named the minimum defensive ARP interval 
"WATCH_WAIT", and added DEFEND_INTERVAL somewhere completely different.

All I'm saying is that we should fix this naming mistake.

Stuart Cheshire <[email protected]>
 * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer, Inc.
 * www.stuartcheshire.org