To support Ralph we do have a responsibility here for those deploying "production Ipv6 now" (we are now not talking just tests) so I have another suggestion from Ralp's mail.
If we do not have an agreed to alternative by next IETF Nov 03 we must move to A. It is unacceptable to permit users to use site-local and I believe we do have consensus completely site-locals must be deprecated and am convinced that those appealing will not win in the WG, with the Chairs, or the IESG. We have consensus in the IETF not just the WG that these must be deprecated. /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Ralph Droms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 2:54 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Moving forward on Site-Local and Local Addressing > > > My understanding of the WG discussion is that deprecation of > site-local > addresses was discussed and consensus was reached independent of the > availability of any alternative solution. Therefore, based on what I > understand to be WG consensus, A is the appropriate way to proceed. > > That's not to say the WG can't change its collective > consensus at this > point. But I don't think the previous discussion of > deprecation was in any > way dependent on devising an alternative solution. > > - Ralph > > At 11:06 AM 8/4/2003 -0700, Bob Hinden wrote: > > >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. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
