- Original Message -
From: "Bound, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
One point I would like to make in regards to this item:
> 3. Were the needs of the market considered in the decision? I don't
> think by all but do we ever use this bar? As I said to you once when
> you were on the IESG consi
MAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: re: Appeal to the IAB on the site-local issue
>
>
> IAB,
>
> Please consider this input for the IAB discussion on Tony's
> appeal of the site local decision. This should not be
I believe that the best outcome for the IETF, and for its constituency,
including enterprise network operators, is for the IPv6 WG to get on with
what it's doing (documenting the deprecation of site-local, and developing
alternatives). I believe the worst outcome for the IETF would be to waste the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
|
| Don't take me wrong, I am not an air-headed academic who fails to
| understand the importance of beeing able to sell the solutions to
| people who are willing to pay for them.
Just to be very clear on this: I don't believe I have seen anyone
in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
| You know, I'd like to see a little more respect for people, and for the
| reports they make. Yes, it would be much better if operational staff
| from each of the Fortune 500 companies and larger tertiary operators
| came to the IETF and spoke for them
At 02:30 PM 10/10/2003, Leif Johansson wrote:
With all due respect, it seems that it would be beneficial for both camps
(for and against SL) to hear, even now, the real concerns directly from
the operation people and to let them participate in the decision
themselves. ...
Been there. Done that.
> For the record, I can't support deprecating site locals until we have
> something else approved to replace them
replace them for what purpose? different people wanted site locals for
different purposes. some of those purposes are dubious. others inherently
cause harm.
we're not going to fi
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Or we all just got sick of the bickering and accepted defeat (unlike Tony).
For the record, I can't support deprecating site locals until we have
something else approved to replace them -- at which point I say good
riddance. There are several drafts in the WG to that end whi
Thus spake "Leif Johansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Been there. Done that. Didn't work. This vast Moral Majority of the
> Site-Locals either don't exist or live entierly behind NATs or other
> boxes which prevent them from receiving the call to arms to participate
> in the debate. ;-)
Or we all just
> You are listening to a very limited subset of the 'community'. I have had
> several questions from fortune 500 network managers as to 'what now?' They
> plan to roll out IPv6 with addresses that are in either the FEC0 range
> anyway, or are trusting that the proposed replacement FC00 will be fina
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Eugene M. Kim wrote:
|
| With all due respect, it seems that it would be beneficial for both
| camps (for and against SL) to hear, even now, the real concerns directly
| from the operation people and to let them participate in the decision
| themselv
note that this survey was done *after* the decision was announced
as a done deal - I, for one, took that into account when I responded
From: Bob Hinden & Brian Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 1
Tony Hain wrote:
You are listening to a very limited subset of the 'community'. I have had
several questions from fortune 500 network managers as to 'what now?' They
plan to roll out IPv6 with addresses that are in either the FEC0 range
anyway, or are trusting that the proposed replacement FC00 wi
Thomas Narten wrote:
> ...
> Popping up a level, there's a more basic thing that I fail to
> understand about this appeal. If the decision to deprecate was so
> wrong and flawed, how does one explain that the community seems to
> support it?
You are listening to a very limited subset of the 'commu
Additional input for your consideration.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ...
> In other words, we found that there was consensus to deprecate AND
> replace site-locals, ...
Witness the situation where the chair is after the fact defining what the
working group agreed to. There was nothing about 'replac
Speaking as an outsider on this particular topic...
Is there any reason why these appeals should be single-threaded?
As much fun as it might be to continue to rotate this topic on a spit,
we've been discussing whether we actually made this decision or not
for six months. Continuing to discuss it
IAB,
Please consider this input for the IAB discussion on Tony's appeal of the
site local decision. This should not be considered a separate appeal.
(Which I would think would have to start at the beginning with the working
group chairs.)
I do not have an opinion on the particulars of Tony's app
Michel,
> There many people, including some that actually _wrote_ the procedures,
> that disagree with you.
This is FUD. If there are people that agree with Tony's appeal, let
them speak for themselves. In all the email on this thread (and the
many conversations I have had with folk), I have had
Hi Scott,
Speaking only for myself, I would like to address a couple of the
points that you have made.
> It is my opinion that there is a difference between a working group
> deciding to adopt a technology and a working group deciding
> to delete a technology from an existing IETF specificat
- I don't see anything in our documented processes that requires a
greater degree of consensus to change an existing specification.
Rather I see an expectation built into our process that undesirable
or unworkable features will be removed as a standard progresses from
proposed to draft t
Christian,
>> Michel Py wrote:
>> There many people, including some that actually _wrote_
>> the procedures, that disagree with you.
> Christian Huitema wrote:
> Please explain or retract. I was the note-taker during that
> particular session, and I don't recall ever stating that the
> chair's
> > Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> > But there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that the WG made a
> > decision, and that the chairs were procedurally correct in
> > recording that decision as the outcome of the meeting.
>
> There many people, including some that actually _wrote_ the
procedures,
> that
Harald,
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> But there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that the WG made a
> decision, and that the chairs were procedurally correct in
> recording that decision as the outcome of the meeting.
There many people, including some that actually _wrote_ the procedures,
that disa
Tony,
speaking only for myself:
I am saddened to see the length to which you are willing to go in
attempting to use process mechanisms to overturn a technical WG decision to
which you do not agree.
After reviewing the video, I personally concluded that *no matter what the
merits of the case*,
24 matches
Mail list logo
