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

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 22:11:40 -0700

> > Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> > But there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that the WG made a
> > decision, and that the chairs were procedurally correct in
> > recording that decision as the outcome of the meeting.
> 
> There many people, including some that actually _wrote_ the
procedures,
> that disagree with you. 

Please explain or retract. I was the note-taker during that particular
session, and I don't recall ever stating that the chair's decision did
not reflect the result of the meeting. 

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 22:22:24 -0700

Christian,

>> Michel Py wrote: 
>> There many people, including some that actually _wrote_
>> the procedures, that disagree with you. 

> Christian Huitema wrote:
> Please explain or retract. I was the note-taker during that
> particular session, and I don't recall ever stating that the
> chair's decision did not reflect the result of the meeting.

Neither do I. I was not referring to you. By "_wrote_ the procedures", I
did not mean "wrote the proceedings".

As an example, I was referring to Scott Bradner's posts the; relation
with the procedure being that Scott is the editor of RFC2026; I do
acknowledge that Scott might not have been speaking as the editor of
RFC2026; nevertheless I consider (as many other people do) Scott as an
expert in terms of procedure.

Michel.

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:28:49 -0400 (EDT)

In private email I was asked to review the "tape" of the IPv6 discussion in
San Francisco.

ftp://limestone.uoregon.edu/pub/videolab/video/ietf56/ietf56%20-%2003202003%20-%20INT%20ipv6.rm

The SL discussion starts at 1:02 into the session.

The chairs first presented a set of slides talking about various SL related
options. The presentation was interrupted with questions from the floor
quite a few times during the discussion of the "exclusive" model (wherein a
v6 node would be a SL node of a global addressing node) - it was clear to
me that there was quite a bit of confusion about this model.  There were
few interruptions during the discussions about the other models.

The chairs opened the floor for general discussion at 1:39 into the
session.  The discussion was careful and extensive.  After a while it
became clear, as noted by Thomas, that more people were arguing for
eliminating SL than had been the case in the past and few people were
arguing for SL addressing. Those that were arguing in favor of SL mostly
said that SL and v6 NATs were going to happen anyway but no one seemed all
that concerned that the IETF define such addresses (e.g. Deno pointed out
that people would just pick their own if the IETF did not.)

At 2:07 into the session the chairs conferred and said that they would ask
a simple yes or no question (in reality they asked two questions) about
deprecating IPv6 SL addresses.  (Not eliminate them in that the sense that
the prefix would not be reassigned for other uses.)  Margaret noted that
the simple questions covered a lot of details that were not called out.

After 10 minutes of discussion to clarify the intent of the questions
Margaret asked for a show of hands for:
	1/ how many people want to deprecate the use of IPv6 SL addresses?
	2/ how many people do not want to deprecate the use of IPv6 SL
	  addresses?

She asked the first question twice so they could get a count of hands the
second time.  The result was 102 hands in favor of deprecating and 20
opposed.  The chairs declared that there was rough consensus in the session
to deprecate the use of IPv6 SL addressing but that this consensus would
now be taken to the list to verify.

After my review of the tape I have come to the following conclusions:

	1/ there was a lot of confusion over the details of at least the
	   exclusive model for the use of SL

	2/ it was a clear sense of the people who chose to express their
	   opinion in favor of deprecating IPv6 addresses (I have no 
	   way of knowing what fraction of the room chose to express 
	   an opinion because the IETF web site says that no meeting 
	   report was received so I have no way to know how many people 
	   were in the room.)

RFC 2418 says:
   ... Decisions reached during a face-to-face meeting about
   topics or issues which have not been discussed on the mailing list,
   or are significantly different from previously arrived mailing list 
   consensus MUST be reviewed on the mailing list.

   and

   In the case where a consensus which has been reached during a face-
   to-face meeting is being verified on a mailing list the people who
   were in the meeting and expressed agreement must be taken into
   account.  If there were 100 people in a meeting and only a few people
   on the mailing list disagree with the consensus of the meeting then
   the consensus should be seen as being verified. 

I followed the discussion on the mailing list.  In my opinion, there was
considerable less clarity of view on the list than in the meeting.

I know of no way to figure out what overlap there was between the people
expressing their opinions on the list and those who expressed their opinion
during the face-to-face session but it seems likely that the ratio of
opinion is somewhere between 3/4 (the ratio reported by Margaret about the
mailing list discussion) and 4/5 (the ration in the meeting).  

While I would rather see rough consensus not wind up with 20 or more
percent of the IETF community (or at least the part of the community that
expressed an opinion) disagreeing with a decision. (That many people may
have input that the rest of the community dismisses at its peril.) I have
to support the working group chair's assertion that rough consensus was
found in this case.

I will follow up this note with two others later today but I wanted to
limit this note to the specific topic of the level of consensus and
confusion.

Scott

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:17:44 -0400 (EDT)

Yesterday I posted a message that said that I agreed with the IPv6 working
group chairs that rough consensus was reached to deprecate IPv6 site local
addresses.  That said, I do have an issue on the discussion that led up to
that consensus decision.  I do not think there was much of an actual
discussion on the topic.

The working group chair's presentation on the site local options listed
five options for the working group moving forward in regards to the site
local question.  These options ranged from eliminating site local addresses
to fully embracing the concept and working out all the details of how to
use them.  But they only discussed the middle three options.  They reported
that the consensus in the Atlanta meeting was to not support outright
elimination or full embrace so those options were not included in the
chair's presentation of the advantages and disadvantages of the various
options.

The discussion during the chair's presentation basically did not touch on
the pros and cons of having site local addresses per se - a few 'they
should just go away' statements were made but no exploration of the issues.

The open discussion after the presentation also did not explore the issues
but there were a greater number of people who felt that SL addresses should
be eliminated from IPv6.

As I mentioned in yesterday's note - Thomas and others noticed the
sentiment  against SL and the chairs wound up asking the question they did
(about deprecating SL) as a result.

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.

At this point I do not know what to suggest be done. As I will explain in
another note, I am in the minority on this topic but even so I'm not sure
that much good would come from readdressing the issue.  It may be best to
stick with the consensus for now and only look at the issue again if it
becomes clear that the future usefulness of IPv6 depends on the IETF
understanding the use of private addressing in IPv6, and that may never
happen.

---

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 23:33:48 -0400

Scott,

I agree with your caution about "removal" 100% and that it requires a
much stronger consenus and test to execute removal, and do not want it
done in anyway but from a serious analysis of those consequences. I also
agree the issue has nothing to do with which side of the fence one sits
on the issue.  It is a process issue and removal is a very serious
decision.

But I read all the discussions that lead up to the March 2003 meeting,
and was in that March 2003 meeting. It was one of the strongest
consensus moments I have seen that happened that day in that room in
that working group and was IMO over 3/4 of the attendees.  And then the
follow up email to the meeting did not overturn that consenus or the
view of the Chairs, ADs, and no one jumped over the fence, who supported
the decision to my knowledge.

Hence, I agree with the bar you articulate for this case, but I for one
truly believe the IETF process was met to proceed with the
recommendation of the Chairs on this issue and is supported by strong
cosensus of the IETF direct participants.

Also the draft below URL provides a good initial discussion and
framework of the issue and also a means to reduce any pain caused by
this removal.  It is not my endorsement of the draft at this time as a
qualification.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local
-01.txt

Other questions not related to this specific issue you articulated so
well are as follows for the future as input to you who knows far more
about this than I and I realize that completely:

1.  Why did the WG agree to this consensus?  An important question?  I
will not comment on this in public.

2.  Did the implementors who agreed understand the ramifications to code
base and were they participants?  The answer is yes.

3.  Were the needs of the market considered in the decision?  I don't
think by all but do we ever use this bar?  As I said to you once when
you were on the IESG consistency is imperative.  The market is
reprsented by our participants.  If participants are not here to support
the IETF they do not get heard.  We have no way to trust one or a few to
represent an entire market other than present their individual view.
That may or may not influence the WG, it depends on the respect the
individual has with their peers I guess?

I will stop there.

Thanks for doing this and documenting the importance of "removal"
publicly it is a very important understanding we must know well before
we ever do removals.  I do "feel" we had consenus as a note.
/jim

**************************************
"if it looks good, you'll see it;
if it sounds good, you'll hear it,
if it's marketed right, you'll buy it;
 but...if it's real, you'll feel it."
Kid Rock
**************************************

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Bradner [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 10:17 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: re: Appeal to the IAB on the site-local issue
> 
> 
> IAB,
> 
> Please consider this input for the IAB discussion on Tony's 
> appeal of the site local decision.  This should not be 
> considered a separate appeal. (Which I would think would have 
> to start at the beginning with the working group chairs.)
> 
> I do not have an opinion on the particulars of Tony's appeal 
> since I was not at the meeting in question and only followed 
> the discussion on the mailing list.  Nor is this an opinion 
> based on the technical question under discussion.  (Although 
> I think some of the cures proposed to the site-local disease 
> are quite a bit worse than the disease itself.)
> 
> I would like to reiterate the concern I expressed on the 
> mailing list back in July - I think there may been a 
> violation of the IETF consensus process 
> in this case.
> 
> It is my opinion that there is a difference between a working 
> group deciding to adopt a technology and a working group 
> deciding to delete a technology from an existing IETF 
> specification.  It is my opinion that the second case should 
> require a stronger demonstration of consensus to change since 
> the decision effects existing implementations, documentation, 
> text books etc.
> 
> But even without any need to show any extra level of 
> consensus I did not see that even a minimal level of rough 
> consensus was demonstrated to remove site local addresses.
> 
> The claim was made on the list that there was not consensus 
> to keep site local addresses, I think that is the wrong 
> question to ask - the proposal was to change a specification 
> after its publication there should have been a rough 
> consensus to remove the feature.
> 
> I did not see rough consensus to do so based on my monitoring 
> the list.
> 
> Scott
> 
> (this is the letter I sent back in July on the topic)
> 
> From sob Mon Jul 28 15:11:01 2003
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: state-of-art SLs
> Cc: [email-masked]
> In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
> 
> 
> > The chairs have read all of the messages on the list, and based on 
> > your considerable input, we have determined that the IPv6 
> WG does have 
> > rough consensus to deprecate the usage of IPv6 site-local unicast 
> > addressing AND to investigate alternative mechanisms for local 
> > addressing and local access
> . control.
> 
> humm - it is not all that often that we have said that 2/3 is 
> rough consensus in the IETF - in my exterience if 1/3 is not 
> in support then I would not claim consensus (even 6 grit) - 
> 3/4 would be very rough indeed, 5/6 would be the mininum I 
> would say was "rough consensus"
> 
> 
> just when does "rough consensus" faid out in this model?
> 
> Scott
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>