Re: Appel due to management of the "site-local issue"

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

Leif Johansson <leifj@it.su.se> writes:

> Currently the question about the future and status of site-locals is
> again beeing discussed in the wg despite the fact that consensus was
> achieved in SF and confirmed on the mailing-list.

To be clear, my understanding is:

1) There was clear consensus to deprecate during the face-to-face
   meeting.

2) This was later confirmed on the mailing list.   

3) Tony Hain appealed the chairs calling of consensus. The chairs
reviewed the situation in response to Tony's appeal, but upheld their
decision. Tony appealed to the INT ADs. They also upheld the chairs
calling of consensus.  Tony has now appealed to the IESG. Robert Elz
has just added a sort of "friend of the court brief" to Tony's appeal
(but did not submit a a separate appeal himself), adding what he
believes to be information of importance relative to Tony's
appeal. The IESG will certainly consider that information as it
processes Tony's appeal.

At the present time, the decision to deprecate site locals stands. 

> This is a sign that the wg chairs have not been able to follow the
> plan laid out at the SF meeting.

It is my understanding that the chairs are trying to get guidance from
the WG on the details of how they want to proceed based on the
decision to deprecate SLs. Deprecating SLs was a decision to move in a
specific direction. There are details to work through to get there.

Then later:

> I appreciate your responding to my appeal and I believe that your 
> intentions are what you describe.
> However by allowing some of the choices (eg deprecating when 
> alternatives are in place) on the table
> you run the clear risk of perpetuating the madness that is site-locals. 
> This was the reason for my appeal.

To be clear, are you filing a formal appeal? If so, you need to be
very clear about which action you are appealing, on what grounds, what
the remedy should be, and so forth. Also, per 2026, the first place to
start with an appeal is the chairs. Only if you are not satisfied with
their response would you go to the next level.

> In my opinion as stated in the appeal I believe that consensus was
> reached for immediate and unconditional deprecation of site-local
> addresses - alternative A in your survey.  Furthermore I believe
> that by not acting on the consensus without delay we allow the
> minority proponents of site-locals to unduly influence the work in
> ipv6-wg by exhausting the non-ipv6 wg regulars who were specifically
> asked to review the site-local issue.

I gather then that you believe that there is already consensus for
Bob's "choice A", and that even offering choice B (and C) is
inappropriate.

In anycase, clarification would be helpful.

Thomas