I agree with Michel, and hence in a way I guess I object to the wording of the question.
Per Margaret's clarification > People who spoke at the mike, but did not express > an opinion during the show of hands, may express their YES/NO opinion now > on the list. I'm still entitled to give a response on the list, which I'm still reserving based on the details of the actual proposal. As I mentioned at the mike during the meeting, to deprecate site-locals, you need to either: a) remove the ability to _automatically_ address disconnected and intermittently-connected sites, or b) specify how to automatically address them. My reading of the opinions expressed during the meeting was that people agreed that disconnected and intermittently connected sites should be supported. However, during the meeting, no one gave any proposals for (b). One or two people (Dino Farinacci was one, and maybe Erik was another?) gave proposals for how to _manually_ number them as an administrator, but that's not a solution for zero-config environments where site-locals may be used today (e.g. a simple home gateway). Hence, I'm assuming that most people responding with "Yes deprecate" mean (b) without knowing if the result would be as bad as site-locals, in which case they're no better off. Since I admit I don't yet know if it would be as bad (or heaven forbid, worse), I abstained from raising my hand at the time. Can someone quickly give a proposal or two for (b) before the consensus call deadline? If I see a reasonable proposal, I'm likely to respond YES. Otherwise I'll be forced to respond NO until a detailed proposal appears. It seems like at the moment we're being asked for a consensus on an idea which may or may not prove to be practical (although we obviously hope it is practical)! -Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Michel Py [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 2:21 PM > To: Margaret Wasserman; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Margaret / Bob, > > What is this consensus about? I was hoping that the mailing list would > be asked to express their opinions _after_ a text to deprecate > site-local addressing had been submitted to the working group. In the > current situation, this consensus if there is one would be good only to > accept text as a working document. This document that still has to be > seen then should go to WG last call. > > Where is the doc to deprecate site-local addressing? > > Michel. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
