Subject: RE: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "Deprecating Site Local Addresses"

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 15:07:47 -0800

> Suggested text to address both comments:
> 
> replace:
> "The special behavior of this prefix MUST no longer be supported in
new
> implementations."
> 
> by
> 
> "The special behavior of this prefix MUST no longer be supported."

Well, we did not intend to force every implementation developer to go
fix the problem immediately, recall the products that have already
shipped, etc. The "new implementation" piece is meant to convey that
meaning. Just dropping it does not really solve the issue.

> >Well, we still have link local scope, so there is still that. Do you
> >suggest that we write a line for each of the RFC that currently
mention
> >site local and explain how to change them?
> >
> Precisely. There are not that many of them. If you go through the
> archives,
> you'll find a post where I made the list of places that either
mentioned
> FECO:: or site local. Or a simple grep in the RFC pages will do.

I would rather use a catch-up phrase than an exhaustive list. Something
like: 
"The special behavior of this prefix MUST no longer be supported in new
implementations or in new protocol definitions. References to this
prefix should be removed from IETF documents when these documents are
revised."

-- Christian Huitema  

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

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 15:35:03 -0800

>meaning. Just dropping it does not really solve the issue.
What you are describing here will be accomplished by using a SHOULD 
statement
instead of a MUST.
"The special behavior of this prefix SHOULD no longer be supported"

>prefix should be removed from IETF documents when these documents are
Well, the list of specs that are using SL is really not that long...
and if you do not say how "new" implementation should handle those
"old" specs now that SL are gone, you only do half of the deprecating job.

    - Alain.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 16:57:14 +0100

Well, I agree with Christian's responses. We need to prevent panic
(people rushing to switch off FEC0 immediately) and we need to prevent
people continuing to write code to support it. I find it hard to see
any wording that is better than the current draft. The IETF often
specifies what must or must not be implemented.

I also don't think we should rewrite all the RFCs that refer to SL.
I have no problem with listing them, as in

 Note that the following documents refer to link local addresses
 and will require appropriate updates: [RFC xxx], [RFC yyy],...

    Brian

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 15:17:01 +0900

>>>>> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 16:57:14 +0100, 
>>>>> Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> said:

>  and will require appropriate updates: [RFC xxx], [RFC yyy],...

Although this is quite obvious, but just to be sure, did you actually
mean "... refer to site local addresses" instead of "... link local
addresses"?

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 19:38:17 +0100

Silly me!

  Brian

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 

NEW ADDRESS <[email-masked]> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK