Re: Architectural debate happening on the IETF mailing list...

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

In message <754190000.1051308609@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no>, Harald Tveit Al
vestrand writes:
>for those who dropped off the threads on the IETF list that seemed all 
>about rehashing site-local, there might actually be some benefit of wading 
>in and commenting..... some interesting issues have come up.
>

Do you mean the ipng list?  Or the "A follow up question" thread being 
directed to both lists?

>---------- Forwarded Message ----------
>Date: fredag, april 25, 2003 13:51:17 -0700
>From: Aaron Falk <falk@isi.edu>
>To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
>Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, "problem-statement@alvestrand.no" 
><problem-statement@alvestrand.no>
>Subject: Re: Site-local debate (Re: objectivity vs. leadership)
>
>Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>>
>>
>> My take is a kind of 3.1 - They have found that the community has made up
>> its mind to deprecate site-local, that this is the right decision, and
>> that  it's now all over but the shouting. They further think that the job
>> of  convincing the last few remaining site-local advocates to give up is
>> better  left to the community than to the IETF leadership..... that
>> repeating their  already clear positions on the technical issue is rather
>> useless.
>>
>
>Harald-
>
>I'm not on the wg mailing list and don't have the perspective of the
>debate there.  I was responding just to the current scrum on the IETF
>list.  Other people may share my perspective ("Where's the I* in this
>discussion?")  and if a the statements have been made on another list,
>it would be helpful to see, say, an AD post a pointer to a message
>containing their POV.  I see no need to make them repeat existing
>arguments but neither do I have the time to read all the archives of
>another wg's list trying to find them.
>
>Additionally, I think that there are some interesting, deep
>architectural issues raised in the current debate which may merit some
>new IETF or IRTF work.  IMO, John Klensin summarized them well in
>http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg20002.html.  It
>would be helpful to me to hear whether the I* thinks this is a
>worthwhile issue to discuss on the IETF list, the ipng list, at the
>plenary, or if it's already considered a non-starter.
>
>--aaron
>
>
>---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
>
>


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