Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-02.txt

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:19:25 -0800

[email-masked] wrote:

>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group of the IETF.
>
>	Title		: Deprecating Site Local Addresses
>	Author(s)	: C. Huitema, B. Carpenter
>	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-02.txt
>	Pages		: 11
>	Date		: 2003-11-19
>

I have a last comment on section 4 deprecation.
The document says:
"The special behavior of this prefix MUST no longer be supported in new 
implementations"
and later on it says:
"Existing implementations and deployments MAY continue to use this prefix."

I find those 2 statements a bit confusing. What about new deployments
using old implementations?
As I have pointed out in the past, the definition of a new vs old 
implementation
is a very fuzy concept, I think that this document should not over 
specify things here.

It would actually be much simpler and less confusing to say only
"The special behavior of this prefix SHOULD no longer be supported"
and nothing about existing deployments.

    - Alain.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 04:44:42 -0800

> using old implementations?

I think the implication is that you're running a risk if you deploy 
site-locals with old implementations because at some point that code 
might not be there.

> is a very fuzy concept, I think that this document should not over 

I think we're doing too much wordsmithing.  The whole notion of 
deprecation is deployment advice.  It's the step you take before telling 
people to remove something from code.

> and nothing about existing deployments.

This doesn't work operationally, because people use site-locals today. 
And as we've debated endlessly we don't do flag days anymore.

IMHO this text is good enough to ship.

Eliot