Re: Appel due to management of the "site-local issue"

[Leif Johansson]

Thomas Narten wrote:

To be clear, are you filing a formal appeal? If so, you need to be
very clear about which action you are appealing, on what grounds, what
the remedy should be, and so forth. Also, per 2026, the first place to
start with an appeal is the chairs. Only if you are not satisfied with
their response would you go to the next level.
 

I am filing a formal appeal and I hope that both the grounds for the appeal,
the actions appealed and the remedy were clear from my email. If not I
appologize.
I gather then that you believe that there is already consensus for
Bob's "choice A", and that even offering choice B (and C) is
inappropriate.
 

Correct. The choices B and C actually imply that site-locals will be 
used which
in no way can be construed as "deprecating" site-locals. Given the 
complexity
of the issues and the time ipv6-wg has spent to date it is not entierly 
clear that B
and C imply anything other than full deployment of site-locals on the 
Internet
for the forseeable future.

In anycase, clarification would be helpful.
 

I am new to the appeals process. Could you please tell me what in my 
original
message needed clarification. Thanks!

Thomas
 

      Cheers Leif

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------