Eric Klein - No we should not deprecate IPv6 site-local unicast addressing
----- Original Message ----- From: "Margaret Wasserman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 10:37 PM Subject: CONSENSUS CALL: Deprecating Site-Local Addressing > > Hi All, > > At the IPv6 WG meetings in SF, we reached consensus on several > points, all of which will be confirmed on the IPv6 mailing list. > One point in particular seems to be the source of discussion > on our list and elsewhere, so we will check this consensus on the > mailing list now. Specifically, we would like to check the consensus > of the IPv6 WG regarding the deprecation of site-local addresses. > > This email asks those that were NOT present at the Thursday IPv6 > meeting in SF to express their opinions on a question that was > asked of the room. If you expressed an opinion on this issue in > SF you can skip this message; in any case you MUST NOT respond to > this query. > > By now, all of you have heard about the IPv6 meeting held on > Thursday, March 20th, where we discussed what to do about > IPv6 site-local addressing. > > At the meeting, the chairs (Bob Hinden and Margaret Wasserman) > changed the agenda to include a joint presentation by the > chairs on various options for site-local usage. There were > no objections to the agenda change. > > The chairs' joint presentation can be found at: > > http://www.psg.com/~mrw/IPv6_Site_Local_Mar03.ppt > > After the chairs' joint presentation, there was over an hour of > lively discussion that covered many aspects of site-local > addressing. Draft minutes of the discussion can be found at: > > http://www.psg.com/~mrw/ipv6-wg-minutes-mar2003.txt > > These minutes are a summary of the discussion, and they did > not capture every detail of the discussion. > > During the discussion, it became clear that the "exclusive" model > proposed by the chairs had some fundamental flaws and was not > a viable option. The WG was unwilling to choose between the three > options presented for site-local usage ("limited", "exclusive" or > "moderate"), believing that all three models represented a poor > cost vs. benefit trade-off. And, as the discussion developed, it > became clear that there was growing support for deprecating > site-local addressing. > > After the usual discussion regarding the phrasing and meaning > of the question (not all of which was captured in the minutes), > the chairs asked a yes/no question: "Should we deprecate IPv6 > site-local unicast addressing?" There was clear consensus in the > room to deprecate site-local addressing. So, now it is time to > check that consensus on the mailing list. > > In order to get a good read for consensus on this point, PLEASE > adhere to the following rules: > > NOTE: DO NOT reply if you already expressed an opinion during > the IPv6 WG meeting in SF! > > - Make your response very clear (YES or NO). > - Respond by Monday, April 7th, 2003 at 5pm EST. > - Do NOT respond if you were physically present > in SF and participated in the consensus > call at that time (We are trusting you!). > - Respond to this thread with the subject intact. > - Respond only once. > - Clearly identify yourself (in the From: line or > inside your message). > - Include the IPv6 WG mailing list in your response > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). > - PLEASE do NOT start any discussion in this thread > (Discussions are encouraged in other threads). > > Any responses that do not adhere to these rules may not be counted. > > The question is: > > Should we deprecate IPv6 site-local unicast addressing? > > Valid responses are: > > "YES -- Deprecate site-local unicast addressing". > "NO -- Do not deprecate site-local unicast addressing". > > If you express an opinion not to deprecate site-local addressing, it > would be helpful if you would provide a reason. Providing a reason > is completely optional, but it may help us to determine how to move > forward if the consensus to deprecate site-locals does not hold. > Possible reasons include: > > - Site-locals should be retained for disconnected sites. > - Site-locals should be retained for intermittently > connected sites. > - Site-locals should be retained for their access control > benefits. > - Site-locals should be retained as a means for internal > connections to survive global prefix renumbering. > - Other (please specify). > > Please, make your response _very_ clear (either YES or NO), or it will > not be counted. > > Please Note: DO NOT respond if you already participated in the > consensus call at the meeting in SF. At the meeting, there were > 102 people who raised their hands for YES (deprecate site-locals) > and 20 people who raised their hands for NO (do not deprecate > site-locals). We will add the responses received on the mailing > list to the hands counted at the meeting, and use that information > to determine full WG consensus on this issue. > > If you feel an urgent need to reply to something that someone sends > in response to this message, please do it in a SEPARATE THREAD with > a different subject line. No discussion in this thread! > > Please voice your opinion on this important issue. > > Bob Hinden & Margaret Wasserman > IPv6 WG Chairs > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
