On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 11:06:55AM -0700, Bob Hinden wrote: > [IPv6 working group chair hat on]
Well on the assumption that the "deprecation" actually happens... > A) Deprecate Site-Local addresses independently from having an alternative > solution available. This would mean that the working group should treat > the deprecation, and requirements and solution documents outlined above > independently from each other. If there was no consensus on an alternative > a replacement would not happen. > > B) Deprecate Site-Local addresses at the same time as a alternative > solution is agreed to. This would mean advancing both documents at the > same time and making them include normative references to each other to > insure that they were published at the same time. This would result in the > deprecation only happening if a consensus was reached on an alternative. > > C) Deprecate Site-Local addresses after an alternative is defined, > standardized, and in operational practice. This would mean not advancing a > deprecation document until there was operational evidence that the > alternative was working and shown to be an improvement over Site-Local > addresses. I'd prefer B. Then C. This because A would seem to result in the chance that no replacement would be developed. DF -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
