> I respectfully ask that the ADs to confirm the decision made in San
> Francisco, later confirmed on the mailing list, and ask the wg chairs
> to please move on, working on real issues regarding ipv6 than beating
> this dead horse once again.
I concur.
Keith
During the IETF meeting in San Francisco, rough consensus found that
site-local was to be deprecated.
The wg was to investigate other approaches to the problems site-local
claims to solve. It should be noted
that the wg chairs explicitly before the meeting in San Francisco asked
people not dir
Subject: Appel due to management of the "site-local issue" Date: Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at
11:41:24AM +0200 Quoting Leif Johansson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I respectfully ask that the ADs to confirm the decision made in San
> Francisco, later confirmed on the
> mailing list, and a
Bob Hinden wrote:
Leif,
You didn't address this to me, but I feel obligated to answer.
The questions I have asked the working group in the email "Moving
forward on Site-Local and Local Addressing" was to ascertain the
manner in which the working group wanted the deprecation of site-local
was
Leif Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Currently the question about the future and status of site-locals is
> again beeing discussed in the wg despite the fact that consensus was
> achieved in SF and confirmed on the mailing-list.
To be clear, my understanding is:
1) There was clear consen
Thomas Narten wrote:
To be clear, are you filing a formal appeal? If so, you need to be
very clear about which action you are appealing, on what grounds, what
the remedy should be, and so forth. Also, per 2026, the first place to
start with an appeal is the chairs. Only if you are not satisfied wi
Leif,
You didn't address this to me, but I feel obligated to answer.
The questions I have asked the working group in the email "Moving forward
on Site-Local and Local Addressing" was to ascertain the manner in which
the working group wanted the deprecation of site-local was to happen. The
ste
