Re: FW: AD response to Site-Local Appeal

[Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>]

I agree with Keith that the vote meant "stop using SLs".  I don't think
there is any reason to believe the vote was taken to answer the question
"stop using SLs because XXX".  People often choose to vote the same way as
others on a specific issue for many different reasons.

We could have asked several questions, each asking about stopping the use of
SLs for a different specific reason.  But we didn't ask those
questions - and it might be good we didn't, as the results might have been
even more ambiguous than the result we did come to.

Seems to me, having come to consensus on "stop using SLs", we're taking
quite reasonable (and independent) next steps:

* Are there specific requirements not met by global addresses?
* If so, what are those requirements?
* How do we meet those requirements?

- Ralph

At 01:42 PM 8/25/2003 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> > In case there was any doubt that the WG has no clue what the vote
> > meant,
>
> The vote meant we're going to stop using SLs, IMHO because it became
> clear that whatever problems SLs were supposed to solve, they weren't
> worth the cost.
>
> We haven't voted on what solutions we were going to recommend for the
> problems that people claimed (sometiemes erroneously) that SL addressed.
> We haven't even agreed on what those problems are, or whether they all
> really exist.
>
> Keith
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------