Subject: RE: Appeal to the IAB on the site-local issue

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:41:41 -0400

Hi Scott,

> But, for what it's worth, I do not think that there was sufficient
> discussion of the option of deprecating SL addresses before 
> the consensus check was made.  So, in a way, I think the consensus 
> was wrongly reached, even if I agree that consensus was reached.

If the San Francisco meeting was the only time/place that the IPv6
WG had discussed the topic of what to do regarding IPv6 site-local 
addressing, then I might agree with you.

However, this had been the most hotly debated and analyzed topic
in the IPv6 WG for the previous two years.  We had exchanged literally 
thousands of e-mail messages on this topic on the IPv6 list, and we
had held lengthy discussions on this topic at several IETF meetings.

In particular, Brian Haberman and Rob Austein presented information
regarding site-locals in Atlanta:

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/02nov/slides/ipv6-5.pdf
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/02nov/slides/ipv6-6.pdf

I also posted a lengthy draft on this topic in December 2002, entitled 
"The Impact of Site-Local Addressing in IPv6".  This draft has since
expired, but the lastest version can still be found at:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wasserman-ipv6-sl-impact-02.txt

So, the discussion during the San Francisco IETF meeting was not the 
only information available to IPv6 particpants regarding this topic.  
Any active IPv6 participant should already have been reasonably 
well-informed regarding this topic before arriving in San Francisco.

Margaret

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:48:49 -0400

In message <[email-masked]
>addressing, then I might agree with you.

What Margaret said.  This is hardly the first time the issue has come 
up; it's been debated for years.

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

---

From: "bill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:30:55 -0700

I'd like to ask an interesting question that might help the IETF, but
not this debate unfortunately.

The meta question is how did we get into a state where some people have
very conflicting views on how well this topic was adjusted (discussed
for years vs. an hour at a IETF meeting in SF), and what can we do in
the future to not allow this process failure to happen again.

Without laying blame anywhere outside of a process failure - I detect
two opinions
1) The WG chairs feel this issue had drug on too long - and finally
reached consensus in SF
2) Some members of the WG feel that an uninformed decision was made in
SF because there wasn't enough time for debate

To be honest - I don't have a personal opinion, and frankly don't know
enough of the details to make a technical choice on which way this
debate should go.  However what appears to be happening is there is an
accusation against our open philosophy inside the IETF.

So from participants, chairs, IESG - are there any lessons to be learned
here that should apply to other WG so that other WG don't have process
failures like this one ?

Bill
In message
<[email-masked]
m>, [email-masked] writes:
>> discussion of the option of deprecating SL addresses before the 
>> consensus check was made.  So, in a way, I think the consensus was 
>> wrongly reached, even if I agree that consensus was reached.
>
>If the San Francisco meeting was the only time/place that the IPv6 WG 
>had discussed the topic of what to do regarding IPv6 site-local

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:56:26 -0400

> here that should apply to other WG so that other WG don't have process

There's a veritable process failure epidemic going on.  It
seems to me that this specific sort of problem is inevitable
from time to time and that it's not sufficiently pervasive
to think that this (where "this" refers to a difference of
opinion as to whether or not an agreement has been reached)
is not a spot problem.  We do tend to have a problem with
people who simply will not accept "no" for an answer but
I don't think this is one of those cases.

Although, come to think of it, to the extent that this represents
a broad category of process failure it would be around our
inability to do consensus well, whether it's as simple as
learning how to ask questions better or publishing the decisions
that have been reached, or as subtle as how we identify
decisions (this aging hippie looks at "80% of the people in
the room said 'yes' so we've got rough consensus" and thinks
"oy vey") and actively try to create consensus.  These issues
are under discussion, etc., elsewhere (the problem working
group) and approaches to solving them are, as well (the "solutions"
mailing list), and it may be worthwhile to take a look at the
documents and mailing list archives to see if you feel there's
more we could be doing around this specific problem area.

Melinda

---

From: "bill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:20:39 -0700

I do not think there is anything approaching an epidemic going on.  It
is always good to look at what MIGHT be a process failure - understand
if it IS a failure (be more self critical before someone else points out
your failings) and if it is, see what can be learned and applied in the
future.

I really wish I personally had more time to look into the
problem/process WGs, but unfortunately - I have my other priorities.
And frankly - I trust the people that are there to do the right thing.  

Bill
> here that should apply to other WG so that other WG don't have process

There's a veritable process failure epidemic going on.  It seems to me
that this specific sort of problem is inevitable from time to time and
that it's not sufficiently pervasive to think that this (where "this"
refers to a difference of opinion as to whether or not an agreement has
been reached) is not a spot problem.  We do tend to have a problem with
people who simply will not accept "no" for an answer but I don't think
this is one of those cases.

Although, come to think of it, to the extent that this represents a
broad category of process failure it would be around our inability to do
consensus well, whether it's as simple as learning how to ask questions
better or publishing the decisions that have been reached, or as subtle
as how we identify decisions (this aging hippie looks at "80% of the
people in the room said 'yes' so we've got rough consensus" and thinks
"oy vey") and actively try to create consensus.  These issues are under
discussion, etc., elsewhere (the problem working
group) and approaches to solving them are, as well (the "solutions"
mailing list), and it may be worthwhile to take a look at the documents
and mailing list archives to see if you feel there's more we could be
doing around this specific problem area.

Melinda

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 02:07:09 +0200

bill wrote:
| I'd like to ask an interesting question that might help the IETF, but
| not this debate unfortunately.
|
| The meta question is how did we get into a state where some people have
| very conflicting views on how well this topic was adjusted (discussed

A contributing factor might be that starting with Yokohama and certainly
by SF the issue had attracted attention by people who don't normaly pay
close tabs to ipv6. Why that is is a separate discussion. That is why
(imo) we saw the confusion - suddenly the all the people in the room
and on the list were not speaking the same language or driven by the
same motivation (for good and/or bad).

	Cheers leifj