Re: FYI: Site Local

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <404070000.1049460587@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no>, Harald Tveit Al
vestrand writes:
>
>
>--On fredag, april 04, 2003 12:32:30 +0200 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" 
><bwijnen@lucent.com> wrote:
>
>> Mmmm.... I am not on IPv6 list (I just cannot be on all
>> IETF WG mailing lists as you understand).
>> Does it then make sense (is it good behaviour) to
>> jump in and post my opinion? The least thing one would
>> expect then is that some posting would be made to IETF or
>> IETF-ANNOUCNE that invites (non mailing lists members)
>> to pay attention.
>>
>> The normal process is that non-mailing-list or non-WG people
>> react on an IETF Last Call, no?
>
>in this case, the issue is fairly important, and needs to be decided before 
>the WG sends anything to Last Call; pushing back after the WG sends stuff 
>to the IESG is the "late surprise" problem that Marshall loves to lambast 
>the IESG about.

This is hardly a late surprise -- the WG is very well aware of the 
controversy over site-local, including the feelings of many ADs.  This 
may be far worse -- after long debate, the WG (including many 
well-respected IETFers) may opt for a feature that the (current) IESG 
opposes.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)