> Our consensus call indicated that work to deprecate site-locals > and replace them would be undertaken "in parallel". Some people > have since asked, quite reasonably I think, whether "in parallel" > implies that these things would happen at the same time, or if > one could/should complete before the other (i.e. do we deprecate > then replace, replace and then deprecate, or do both at once).
Tthe problem with making deprecation dependent on having a replacement is that this allows the SL proponents to delay the replacement, and thus the deprecation, for an arbitrarily long time - long enough to ensure that SLs are widely deployed. In order to justify the delay, they can cite arbitrary and unsubstantiated "requirements" that make the bar for a replacement arbitrarily high - while ignoring the requirements that are driving deprecation of SL. This is unacceptable. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
