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

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 23:32:58 -0700

Leif,

You didn't address this to me, but I feel obligated to answer.

The questions I have asked the working group in the email "Moving forward 
on Site-Local and Local Addressing" was to ascertain the manner in which 
the working group wanted the deprecation of site-local was to happen.  The 
steps the working group should take.  This has been a topic of debate it 
and I thought it best to get feedback from the working group.

It was not in any way an attempt to revisit or un-deprecate 
site-locals.  Each choices I asked people to indicate their preference for 
in that email included deprecating site-local addresses.  I support that 
the working group did decide to deprecate site-local addresses, helped to 
declare that consensus, and I am one of the w.g. chairs who rejected the 
appeal on that topic to overturn the decision.  The chairs are not trying 
to change the decision of the working group.

I think you may be misinterpreting the intent of this email.  Site-Local 
is, as everyone can see, a contentious issue and it is my desire get 
clarity on the way the WG wants to move forward.  Getting feed back from 
the working group on how it wants to do this is something I feel is essential.

Regards,
Bob

At 02:41 AM 8/5/2003, Leif Johansson wrote:

>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]
>--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:00:37 +0200

Bob Hinden wrote:

> The questions I have asked the working group in the email "Moving 
> forward on Site-Local and Local Addressing" was to ascertain the 
> manner in which the working group wanted the deprecation of site-local 
> was to happen.  The steps the working group should take.  This has 
> been a topic of debate it and I thought it best to get feedback from 
> the working group.

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.

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.

          Cheers Leif