Subject: Appel due to management of the "site-local issue"

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 11:41:24 +0200

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

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:59:31 -0400

> Francisco, later confirmed on the mailing list, and ask the wg chairs
> to please move on, working on real issues regarding ipv6 than beating

I concur. 

Keith

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 11:11:58 -0400

Leif Johansson <[email-masked]> writes:

> again beeing discussed in the wg despite the fact that consensus was
> achieved in SF and confirmed on the mailing-list.

To be clear, my understanding is:

1) There was clear consensus to deprecate during the face-to-face
   meeting.

2) This was later confirmed on the mailing list.   

3) Tony Hain appealed the chairs calling of consensus. The chairs
reviewed the situation in response to Tony's appeal, but upheld their
decision. Tony appealed to the INT ADs. They also upheld the chairs
calling of consensus.  Tony has now appealed to the IESG. Robert Elz
has just added a sort of "friend of the court brief" to Tony's appeal
(but did not submit a a separate appeal himself), adding what he
believes to be information of importance relative to Tony's
appeal. The IESG will certainly consider that information as it
processes Tony's appeal.

At the present time, the decision to deprecate site locals stands. 

> This is a sign that the wg chairs have not been able to follow the
> plan laid out at the SF meeting.

It is my understanding that the chairs are trying to get guidance from
the WG on the details of how they want to proceed based on the
decision to deprecate SLs. Deprecating SLs was a decision to move in a
specific direction. There are details to work through to get there.

Then later:

> I appreciate your responding to my appeal and I believe that your 
> intentions are what you describe.
> However by allowing some of the choices (eg deprecating when 
> alternatives are in place) on the table
> you run the clear risk of perpetuating the madness that is site-locals. 
> This was the reason for my appeal.

To be clear, are you filing a formal appeal? If so, you need to be
very clear about which action you are appealing, on what grounds, what
the remedy should be, and so forth. Also, per 2026, the first place to
start with an appeal is the chairs. Only if you are not satisfied with
their response would you go to the next level.

> In my opinion as stated in the appeal I believe that consensus was
> reached for immediate and unconditional deprecation of site-local
> addresses - alternative A in your survey.  Furthermore I believe
> that by not acting on the consensus without delay we allow the
> minority proponents of site-locals to unduly influence the work in
> ipv6-wg by exhausting the non-ipv6 wg regulars who were specifically
> asked to review the site-local issue.

I gather then that you believe that there is already consensus for
Bob's "choice A", and that even offering choice B (and C) is
inappropriate.

In anycase, clarification would be helpful.

Thomas

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 17:56:59 +0200

>their response would you go to the next level.
I am filing a formal appeal and I hope that both the grounds for the appeal,
the actions appealed and the remedy were clear from my email. If not I
appologize.

>Bob's "choice A", and that even offering choice B (and C) is
Correct. The choices B and C actually imply that site-locals will be 
used which
in no way can be construed as "deprecating" site-locals. Given the 
complexity
of the issues and the time ipv6-wg has spent to date it is not entierly 
clear that B
and C imply anything other than full deployment of site-locals on the 
Internet
for the forseeable future.

>In anycase, clarification would be helpful.
I am new to the appeals process. Could you please tell me what in my 
original
message needed clarification. Thanks!

>Thomas
       Cheers Leif

---

From: Mans Nilsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 01:43:51 +0200

> this dead horse once again.

I fully support Leif and share his view in this. Let's move on. 

-- 
Måns Nilsson         Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204         KTHNOC
                        MN1334-RIPE

Hello...  IRON CURTAIN?  Send over a SAUSAGE PIZZA!  World War III?  No
thanks!