Subject: Re: FW: AD response to Site-Local Appeal

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 12:03:14 -0400

Tony -- to make life easier for all concerned, please state explicitly 
what recourse you're asking for from the IESG.  As things stand now, 
even if we agreed with everything you say, we wouldn't know exactly 
what you want us to do.  

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:36:01 -0700

> even if we agreed with everything you say, we wouldn't know exactly 

I thought I did:
'The declaration of consensus must be overturned as an abuse of the
process.'

I guess I am not sure what you are looking for since there is little else
the IESG can do. Would kre's more explicit and directive choice of words
have been better?
'The IESG must instruct the ipv6 WG chairs that they erred in determining
that there was consensus on this issue, that the procedures were flawed, and
that the IETF does not count votes to determine consensus, or rough
consensus.'

Tony

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:22:05 -0700

In case there was any doubt that the WG has no clue what the vote meant,
read the current thread 'Accept hain/templin draft as wg item?'. While many
were focused on removing ambiguity, there are others who still believe it
was about removing scope. Since scope is about describing bounds of
reachability it is an operations function, and outside the realm of the
IETF's ability to deprecate. The original question was ambiguous and must be
voided. If the chairs were to ask specific questions, I believe they would
find the real WG consensus.

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Tony Hain
> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 11:36 AM
> To: 'Steven M. Bellovin'
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: FW: AD response to Site-Local Appeal 
> 
> 
> 'The declaration of consensus must be overturned as an abuse 
> of the process.'
> 
> I guess I am not sure what you are looking for since there is 
> little else the IESG can do. Would kre's more explicit and 
> directive choice of words have been better? 'The IESG must 
> instruct the ipv6 WG chairs that they erred in determining 
> that there was consensus on this issue, that the procedures 
> were flawed, and that the IETF does not count votes to 
> determine consensus, or rough consensus.'
> 
> 
> Tony
> 
>

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:22:05 -0700

Tony

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 13:42:54 -0400

> In case there was any doubt that the WG has no clue what the vote

The vote meant we're going to stop using SLs, IMHO because it became
clear that whatever problems SLs were supposed to solve, they weren't
worth the cost.

We haven't voted on what solutions we were going to recommend for the
problems that people claimed (sometiemes erroneously) that SL addressed.
We haven't even agreed on what those problems are, or whether they all
really exist.

Keith

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:39:06 +0200

> We haven't even agreed on what those problems are, or whether they all

Agreed. No replacement is also a replacement. That said, I think there 
is a lot left to discuss on what to recommend for the cases that have 
been brought up.

- kurtis -

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 09:22:46 -0400

[Dropped the IESG...]

At 11:39 AM 8/26/2003 +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
>Agreed. No replacement is also a replacement. That said, I think there is 
>a lot left to discuss on what to recommend for the cases that have been 
>brought up.

I agree.  There are a number of situations (disconnected sites,
intermittently connected sites, etc.) where provider-allocated
addressing is not a good method for address assignment.

We need to figure out how these networks should be addressed.
Our solution(s) may (or may not) require various properties of
"local addressing":  a provider-independent address prefix,
addresses that are defined to have limited routability,
addresses with special autoconfiguration properties, etc.

Margaret

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 04:18:17 -0400

I agree with Keith that the vote meant "stop using SLs".  I don't think
there is any reason to believe the vote was taken to answer the question
"stop using SLs because XXX".  People often choose to vote the same way as
others on a specific issue for many different reasons.

We could have asked several questions, each asking about stopping the use of
SLs for a different specific reason.  But we didn't ask those
questions - and it might be good we didn't, as the results might have been
even more ambiguous than the result we did come to.

Seems to me, having come to consensus on "stop using SLs", we're taking
quite reasonable (and independent) next steps:

* Are there specific requirements not met by global addresses?
* If so, what are those requirements?
* How do we meet those requirements?

- Ralph