[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Appel due to management of the "site-local issue"
Leif,
You didn't address this to me, but I feel obligated to answer.
The questions I have asked the working group in the email "Moving forward
on Site-Local and Local Addressing" was to ascertain the manner in which
the working group wanted the deprecation of site-local was to happen. The
steps the working group should take. This has been a topic of debate it
and I thought it best to get feedback from the working group.
It was not in any way an attempt to revisit or un-deprecate
site-locals. Each choices I asked people to indicate their preference for
in that email included deprecating site-local addresses. I support that
the working group did decide to deprecate site-local addresses, helped to
declare that consensus, and I am one of the w.g. chairs who rejected the
appeal on that topic to overturn the decision. The chairs are not trying
to change the decision of the working group.
I think you may be misinterpreting the intent of this email. Site-Local
is, as everyone can see, a contentious issue and it is my desire get
clarity on the way the WG wants to move forward. Getting feed back from
the working group on how it wants to do this is something I feel is essential.
Regards,
Bob
At 02:41 AM 8/5/2003, Leif Johansson wrote:
During the IETF meeting in San Francisco, rough consensus found that
site-local was to be deprecated.
The wg was to investigate other approaches to the problems site-local
claims to solve. It should be noted
that the wg chairs explicitly before the meeting in San Francisco asked
people not directly involved in
ipv6 design (security, routing and applications people) to get involved
with this issue. In my opinion
from talking to a number of collegues and from the traffic on the mailing
list those involved from other
areas are no longer actively participating in the debate since they
believe that site-locals has indeed been deprecated and that the ipv6 wg
is continuing the important work on ipv6 in the IETF.
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. This is a sign that
the wg chairs have not been able to follow the plan laid out at the SF
meeting.
I respectfully ask that the ADs to confirm the decision made in San
Francisco, later confirmed on the
mailing list, and ask the wg chairs to please move on, working on real
issues regarding ipv6 than beating
this dead horse once again.
Best Regards
Leif Johansson
Stockholm university
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------