Michel, "Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If the consensus to deprecate them does not hold, I'm not > > quite sure what we are going to do... We certainly don't > > have consensus to do any further work on site-locals, > To the contrary, I think this is the only consensus we have. > First, this "consensus" on deprecation (if there is one which remains to > be seen) does not exist for two big reasons: > 1. Most of the votes were taken without knowing what it really meant. > It's a consensus on vaporware. > Note that this is not a criticism; Bob and you obviously had something > else in mind and if there is something you failed it's only that you did > not have the right inspiration when you had to improvise and that you > allowed a few agitators in the room bully you into this vaporware > instead of sticking to the plan. > In the pot calling the kettle black dept. I would say that you did not > pay enough attention to room dynamics and too much to your presentation > :-( I find the above unhelpful and not true. Saying the votes were taken "without knowing what it really meant" is FUD. I was in the room and I sure felt like I knew what was being asked. I also went to the microphone before the question was asked to point out that what we were talking about by deprecation was "something to the left of the limited model". Nobody seemed to question that. I don't think anyone can claim folks didn't know what was being asked. To suggest otherwise is an attempt to cast FUD. > 2. I don't see how any consensus can be reached without a detailed > explanation about the consequences on the scoped architecture. I think a fair number of people do feel like they understand the consequences even if they aren't all written down in one document that explains it all in easy to understand steps. I have certainly had long conversations about this issue with numerous folk that I think do understand the implications -- and it is those implications that make people uncomfortable. I also think that the consequences and implications are subtle and not immediately easy to understand. I say that because it has taken a long time for the number of folk to understand the consequences and be concerned about them to reach critical mass. Everyone seems to start off from the "what's the big deal?" perspective. Heck, I thought SLs were fine too if we go back 5 years. It wasn't until we really started thinking hard about them that their problems started becoming better understood. I've seen it now (somewhat independently) in the zeroconf WG too, where similar issues have been discussed with LL addressing for IPv4. There are plenty of people there that don't see what is hard about scoping and that it's not a big deal to make applications handle them. But over time, more people have also come around to understanding that there are issues, and there are problems with scoping. And if you go to applications people (that is, those folk that spend their lives doing applications rather than stack work) they seem much more concerned on average that scoped addresses have significant (bad) implications for applications. > Second, by your own account we do need to prepare documents about what > to do next. Call it deprecation if you want what I call it is that we > have more work to do on site-locals and on the scoped architecture. Clearly, that needs to be done. But there is a basic chicken-and-egg problem. If the the WG isn't going to deprecate SLs, why would anyone bother writing the document calling for their deprecation? The purpose of the current discussion is to figure out whether we should go to the next steps of making changes in various documents. > > and it isn't clear how we can ever finalize the scoped > > addressing architecture without some type of decision > > on this issue. Perhaps we can break out the > > non-contentious parts and advance those parts? > I believe we can progress on three topics: > - Ambiguity > - Convexity / defining the site borders. > - Tuning the compromise. > Unfortunately this requires people that are for IPv6 and not against and > that are willing to compromise. I regret to report that at this point I > count only three: Bob Hinden, you and me. I don't understand what you are trying to say above, but if the implication is that the only members of the WG that are being reasonable and willing to listen are those listed above, I find that rather offensive. Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
