Subject: RE: Requirements for Limited-Scope Unicast Addressing in IPv6

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:59:10 -0700

> Fred Templin wrote:
> Loses to the proposal that best satisfies the requirements.

No more comments. The appeals will proceed as documented.

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:57:02 -0700

Michel,

At 09:50 PM 6/20/2003, Michel Py wrote:
> > Fred Templin wrote:
> > A limited-scope addressing scheme is needed to replace the
> > now-deprecated site-local scheme from [RFC3513]
>
>The site-local scheme is not deprecated until there is a published
>document that states otherwise which will not happen until all the
>outstanding appeals have been resolved. Therefore the site-local scheme
>from RFC3513 which is in the standards track is still valid. Should you
>push this text to be published I can assure you that it will be appealed
>as well all the way to the IAB.

Your email saying that this work can not proceed or it will be appealed is 
out of line and an attempt to intimidate the IPv6 working group.  This is 
unacceptable and inconsistent with open IETF participation.  There is an 
appeal outstanding regarding the IPv6 working groups decision to deprecate 
site-local addresses, but until and if that decision of the working group 
is overturned, we will continue working under that decision.  You may make 
your own decision about whether or not to participate in this activity.

Bob Hinden
IPv6 w.g. co-chair

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 21:28:39 -0700

Bill,

> Bill Manning wrote:
> that still does not let the IETF determine when/if any
> organization has a production ipv6 service. the IETF can
> define specs and recommend practice and thats as far as
> it goes, IMHO.

Agree. But back to your original text:

> perhaps my  issue is that your original note
> used the term "production", while now you use the
> term "operational".  they are different words w/
> distinct meanings.

Without getting in the definition of what is a production network, what
I meant is this: IMHO, it is reasonable to assume that the majority
(literally: more than 50%) of IPv6 operators are considered reasonably
competent to the extent that they operate their networks in a fashion
compatible with having customers and provide them that commodity called
"IPv6 service", regardless of what the precise definition of what "IPv6
service" really means at a certain point in time.

In other words: If IPv6 is operational, and if we assume that most
operators operate their networks within reasonable limits of what should
be done, this leads to IPv6 being in production.

I apologize for using two different words, but for all practical
purposes what is the difference?

Michel.