Re: Removing features

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

The word "deprecating" has a quite precise meaning in standards writing,
which is not the same as "removing". Rather than debating this cross-posted
on several lists, why don't people watch out for 
draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-01.txt which will appear in a few days,
and see if they agree with the way it's written? And then debate it on
the relevant list?

   Brian

Margaret.Wasserman@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> Hi Fred,
> 
> > So in the general case I don't see a problem with deprecating
> > things under the right circumstances, but I do have a problem with
> > removing them outright. Deprecation doesn't prevent people from using
> > them, but outright removal can be dangerous. And in this case, the
> > assertion that one can still use the address prefix in a local manner
> > is simply incorrect; it can be assigned at the whim of IANA, and
> > network administrations need to plan accordingly.
> 
> Actually, we are being very careful about this in the deprecation
> of IPv6 site-local addressing.  Christian Huitema and Brian Carpenter
> have co-authored a very carefully written deprecation document that
> makes it clear how these addresses should be treated to avoid problems
> with existing site-local implementations.  And, we are planning to
> instruct IANA not to return these addresses to the regular allocation
> pool.
> 
> Margaret
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 

NEW ADDRESS <brc@zurich.ibm.com> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK