> > We disagree. The question asked by the chairs was not about > > the differing reasons, the question was specifically about > > SLs, and whether the WG wanted to deprecate them. That the > > question referred specifically to deprecating site locals > > (and not the reasons why one might do so) is obvious. It is > > common in the IETF when deciding technical issues for > > different people to have different reasons for coming to a > > particular conclusion, or to weigh tradeoffs differently. In > > the end, if there is consensus on the answer to a specific > > question, we have consensus, even if the reasons for reaching > > a particular outcome are not shared. > > Unfortunately this is a misinterpretation of my point. It is not > focused on'different people had different reasons', because we agree > there will always be different perspectives and opinions. The focus > was that a significant number of participants had the specific reason > 'remove limited scoping', and this is not something the IETF gets to > decide. It is an operational issue, and network managers will build > networks where addresses have limited routing scope.
and this, I believe, is a misrepresentation of that side. IETF should not be bound by your representation of other people's opinions. IETF doesn't get to decide how people filter traffic on their networks. What it does get to decide is whether there is an expectation in the standards that a _particular range_ of addresses will get filtered at some ill-defined boundary. And it has decided against it. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
