Subject: RE: Thoughts on draft-savola-ipv6-127-prefixlen-04.txt

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:31:08 -0400

Hi Michel,

At 10:08 PM 8/11/02 , Michel Py wrote:
>Here is what I propose so we don't bore this WG to death:
>
>In Atlanta, both kre and I get a 5-minute slot to present.

It is much better to bore the WG to death on the mailing list than it
is to do it in person :-)/2.

More seriously, there are three reasons why I don't think that this
is a good plan:

         - The WG is here, on the mailing list.  Only a small portion
                 of the WG will be represented at the meeting in Atlanta.
         - There is no reason to wait until November for a resolution
                 on this issue.

>Then we ask the following question to the floor:
>
>"Let's imagine that the 'u' bit does not exist. Do we remove the parts
>that mandate an address to be /64, or don't we".
>
>If the floor says that we toss the /64 boundary, my vote goes to
>suppress the 'u' bit so this can happen. If the floor says that we keep
>the /64 boundary, then my vote goes to keep the 'u' bit for the time
>being, as it does not harm anybody.

There is no reason not to ask these questions here, on the mailing list.
The response we are looking for isn't a "vote", however...

The current situation with the addressing architecture is that we have
established a consensus of the WG to make two changes to the document 
(described in Bob's mail) and send it (back) to the IESG for consideration 
as a draft standard.

I have not seen a level of response to this thread that would lead me to 
question that consensus.  Have you?

Margaret

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:55:06 +0300 (EEST)

> is to do it in person :-)/2.

Agree :-)
 
>          - There is no reason to wait until November for a resolution

Also agree, the second point most of all.  We shouldn't be delaying 
address architecture if we can avoid that.
 
> The response we are looking for isn't a "vote", however...

Sure, and it is a bit difficult to get a feel of consensus on an issue 
so many people are neutral about or ignorant of.
 
> question that consensus.  Have you?

FWIW, I agree with Robert Elz's suggestions.

Perhaps this question should be posed (with appropriate executive summary
and a different topic) for the w.g. members to consider (for example a
week or two would probably be enough).
 
-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 21:57:31 +0700

Date:        Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:31:08 -0400
    From:        Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | The current situation with the addressing architecture is that we have
  | established a consensus of the WG to make two changes to the document 
  | (described in Bob's mail) and send it (back) to the IESG for consideration 
  | as a draft standard.

From where did we get that consensus?   We're still discussing the
two changes, it is clear that Tony Hain at least (maybe Jim Bound, that's
less clear) is opposed to one of them.   But in general most seem to
support making those changes.

Though that's mostly by silence - and if you believe one of Thomas'
recent messages, silence is not enough to change the status quo ...
(which here would be what is in addrarch-08).

I don't, I think if there's support, and no stated technical objections,
then changes should be made, if the silent majority see that coming and
disagree, they won't remain silent.

  | I have not seen a level of response to this thread that would lead me to 
  | question that consensus.  Have you?

I haven't seen anything in this thread that establishes any consensus for
sending the doc back to the IESG yet at all.

kre