On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Tony Hain wrote: > Keith Moore wrote: > > It wasn't a few vocal people. It was an overwhelming > > majority. There > > were far more people in favor of deprecating site locals at that > > meeting, than the set of people in favor of site locals even if you > > include those on the list those who weren't present at that meeting. > > It was a clear consensus of the working group. And yes, you > > can make a > > decision in a face-to-face meeting if there is such overwhelming > > support for the decision at the meeting that there simply > > aren't enough > > people on the mailing list to affect the consensus. > > There are significantly more people on this list than you could fit in > one of the rooms in SF. The chairs need to raise the question on the > list, because this is not a trival issue.
I certainly support asking the list.. > From reports I heard the whole > SF discussion was based on a bogus assertion that SL == NAT. .. but this is not true. In fact, (AFAIR) few arguments centered around the fear of NAT. When the choice was between "limited use" and "deprecate", I guess this argument was mentioned -- but then the question was only about how SL is going to be "put down" (ie. which kind of message would be sent). People didn't see the need for RFC1918 space in IPv6. I don't like SL myself, but I was surprised to see people wanted even more harsh action than I had anticipated, based on the IMO dangerous direction we went in Atlanta. My guess would be that there was new application/operator perspective to the dialogue, and after writing a few drafts and revisions, folks seemed to start realizing that actually making site-locals *work* (to some definition of "work") would be going to be *painful*. I personally have struggled with at least one specification (SSM multicast architecture) in the meantime -- and if we'd have to specify the scoping treatment in all the specs for basically everything related to routing, and even further in applications etc., I'd probably start crying. *Not* worth the effort. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
