[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Draft IPv6 Minutes from Atlanta IETF

At 04:43 PM 3/28/2003 -0800, Tony Hain wrote:
>It is interesting that Erik pointed out there was not enough information
>to make a decision due to lack of agreement about the requirements, yet
>that was ignored and the decision was made to press on and call a
>question that was not even on the agenda ...

Actually, Erik objected to calling the question to decide between
the three site-local alternatives ("limited", "exclusive" or
"moderate"). And, in fact, we never called that question...

Discussion continued from that point, including further comments
from Erik.  It became clear that there was significant support
within the group for deprecating site-local addressing altogether,
so we decided to call a different questions -- whether or not to
deprecate site-local addressing.  There was some discussion regarding
the meaning of that question, and people were given an opportunity
to object to the phrasing/timing of the question (none did).

I am sorry that you were ill and unable to attend the meeting and
express your opinion.  I also appreciate your consideration and
concern for the health of others.  But, I believe that you have
a mistaken impression regarding what took place in the IPv6 meeting.

As is true of most IETF minutes, these minutes do not really capture
the discussion very well.  I have heard that there are "movies"
available for multicast sessions, so it is possible that you could
get a better idea of what happened in the meeting by watching the

There were many people in the room who have traditionally supported
site-local addressing, and about 20 people who stated their opinion
that site-local addresses should not be deprecated.  Those people
have NOT been posting to the IETF list or the IPv6 list indicating
that they feel that the process was used unfairly during the meeting,
or that the results did not represent the consensus of the room.
In fact, a few of them have written and said that they disagreed
with the decision, but that they support the consensus of the WG.
Please think about that.

I also strongly object to your poor characterization of the IPv6
WG attendees.  There were many people in the room who write
"real" implementations and/or run "real" networks, and there
were experts present from many different IETF areas that could be
affected by site-local addressing (most notably routing, DNS,
and applications).


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 majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com