Subject: Results of Poll

From: Bob Hinden & Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 10:55:33 -0700

The results of the poll (appended below) started by the chairs in early 
August to get more feed back from the working about how to deprecate 
site-local are as follows:

    Preference A   32     45%
    Preference B   31     44%
    Preference C    8     11%
    --------------------------
    Total Votes    71    100%

The raw votes are available at:

     http://people.nokia.net/~hinden/ipv6-choices.html

If we missed your preference or got it wrong, please let us know.

There are a few conclusions that can be seen in this poll.

Only 11% of the people responding wanted to defer the deprecation of 
site-local until an alternative was deployed.  89% wanted to deprecate 
prior to an alternative being standardized or at the same time an 
alternative was standardized.

There was not a consensus about tieing the deprecation of site-local to 
defining an alternative or do the deprecation before defining an 
alternative.  The working group is closely split on this.  Even combing 
preferences B & C (i.e., 55%) does not form a consensus.

Based on this, the chairs will plan to move the deprecation document and 
the local addressing specification forward at approximately the same time, 
but will not do anything to officially tie them together.

Bob Hinden / Brian Haberman
IPv6 w.g. chairs

>Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 11:06:55 -0700
>To: [email-masked]
>From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Moving forward on Site-Local and Local Addressing
>Cc: [email-masked]
>
>[IPv6 working group chair hat on]
>
>I think the working group has been making good progress on replacing 
>site-local addresses and wanted to get feed back from the working group on 
>how we should move forward.  This is not intended to directly relate to 
>the ongoing appeal of the working groups decision to deprecate the usage 
>site-local addresses, but to get feedback on how to proceed.  I think it 
>is very important that we move forward on this issue and not rehash what 
>has happened in the past.
>
>We now have a combined local addressing requirements document 
><draft-hain-templin-ipv6-limitedrange-00.txt>, a specific alternative to 
>site-local addresses draft <draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-02.txt> 
>(accepted as a working group item at the Vienna IETF), and will soon have 
>a draft describing why site-local addresses are being deprecated and doing 
>the formal deprecation (authors identified and outline discussed at the 
>Vienna IETF).  Note that all of these documents will proceed through the 
>normal working group and IETF processes of last calls and review.
>
>I think legitimate questions have been raised about how the working group 
>should go about deprecating site-local addresses given their maturity in 
>the current specifications and use in deployed products.  Specifically 
>should they be deprecated independently from having an alternative 
>solution available, at the same time an alternative is available, or 
>sometime after an alternative is available.  A forth alternative is to not 
>replace site-local addresses in any form, but I think the working group 
>has made it clear that this is not a reasonable alternative.
>
>I would like to hear from the working group on how we should proceed.  I 
>think the choices are:
>
>A) Deprecate Site-Local addresses independently from having an alternative 
>solution available.  This would mean that the working group should treat 
>the deprecation, and requirements and solution documents outlined above 
>independently from each other.  If there was no consensus on an 
>alternative a replacement would not happen.
>
>B) Deprecate Site-Local addresses at the same time as a alternative 
>solution is agreed to.  This would mean advancing both documents at the 
>same time and making them include normative references to each other to 
>insure that they were published at the same time.  This would result in 
>the deprecation only happening if a consensus was reached on an alternative.
>
>C) Deprecate Site-Local addresses after an alternative is defined, 
>standardized, and in operational practice.  This would mean not advancing 
>a deprecation document until there was operational evidence that the 
>alternative was working and shown to be an improvement over Site-Local 
>addresses.
>
>Note:  In the above choices "Deprecate Site-Local addresses" means 
>publishing an RFC that does the formal deprecation.
>
>Please respond to the list with your preference, or if there is an 
>alternative approach that is an improvement from the ones I outlined.  I 
>hope that many of you will respond.
>
>Thanks,
>Bob

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

---

From: Hans Kruse <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:08:47 -0400

First, could you please be clear where your cutoff is?  I am pretty sure 
this poll indeed does not show consensus, but the original deprecation call 
was based on percentages that were only quantitatively, but maybe not 
qualitatively clearer.

I would also point out that the poll indicates that there is no consensus 
for moving the deprecation document by itself.

Having said that, the stated course of action seems the right one. 
However, the numbers suggest to me that moving the documents together 
through WG last call -- with a well worked out "replacement" document -- 
will be much less likely to result in an e-mail bloodbath than the (to some 
tempting) approach of pushing deprecation and then conveniently forgetting 
the other document.

> preferences B & C (i.e., 55%) does not form a consensus.

Hans Kruse, Associate Professor
J. Warren McClure School of Communication Systems Management
Adjunct Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Ohio University, Athens, OH, 45701
740-593-4891 voice, 740-593-4889 fax