The implementer is the only person who can remove it. As I said in Minneapolis, the problem here is that we don't have clear versioning in IETF standards. If we could say
"site local was standard in IPv6.1, is deprecated in IPv6.2, and will be removed from IPv6.3" then the conformance issue is immediately clarified and implementers know what it means to claim conformance to IPv6.3, i.e. no site local support. But I think Keith's suggestion is correct - add in the text descrription prior to the normative statements. It's the best we can do, let's just do it. Brian Eliot Lear wrote: > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > Which software release counts as "new" is indeed not a question for > > the IETF, and each implementer will have to make his/her own judgement > > about exactly when to remove the feature. But I don't think it's wrong to > > say that they MUST remove it. > > Sorry- I'm lost in pronouns here. Who MUST remove it? If you're > referring to new implementations (for some value of new), I agree. > > Eliot > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM NEW ADDRESS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
