Steve, > Steven M. Bellovin wrote: > Tony -- to make life easier for all concerned, please state > explicitly what recourse you're asking for from the IESG. > As things stand now, even if we agreed with everything you say, > we wouldn't know exactly what you want us to do.
IMHO the ultimate goal is to handle the deprecation situation by having the IESG make a decision that will lead the ipv6 WG into taking the appropriate path towards it. IMHO, this path is: 1. The WG will publish a document describing the requirements to replace site-local addresses. 2. The WG will publish one and possibly/preferably more than one document(s) describing solutions to replace site-locals that meet the requirements (it could be a good idea to merge close-enough drafts at some point). 3. The WG will publish a deprecation proposal document. This document will mostly propose to deprecate existing site-locals and develop one of solutions issued from 2. THEN, having provided enough time to review the deprecation proposal and the merits of the proposed replacement(s) the WG will be able to make an educated decision whether or not deprecating site-locals in appropriate (one criteria being that the proposed replacement has less problems than the current site-locals), and if yes which one(s) of the proposed replacement(s) is to be developed. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
