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

RE: Removing features

> The second is the side point I raised with Margaret: in the 
> general case of "things in specifications", removing something 
> from a  specification does not mean that someone can still use 
> it. Deprecation protects such a usage, but removal does not.

Scott's posting made a distinction between adding and removing
features, lumping site-local deprecation into the "removing
features" category.  I echoed his terminology.

I agree with you that there is a difference between simply
removing a feature (which might cause serious backwards
compatibility concerns, and could be quite irresponsible in
some cases) and carefully deprecating a feature (while considering
the affects on current implementations and preserving  backwards 
compatibility).  In the IPv6 site-local case, the decision was made 
to deprecate site-local addresses, and that is what we are working 
to do.  The proposals currently on the table reserve the current 
site-local prefix, so that it will not be reallocated by IANA.

Fred, I hope that this resolves your technical concern about
this particular case, and I apologize for not making this
distinction clear in my response to Scott.  

> That is actually not the 
> subject of either appeal, and should not enter into the discussion of 
> either appeal,...

As far as I know, there is only one appeal currently open
regarding this subject.


IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6