Thomas & Erik,
These notes illustrate my point about the ambiguity of the question.
First, one has to question how well Ted and others were informed if
their issue is all about ambiguity. We have several proposals to remove
the ambiguity in the FEC0::/10 prefix that are compatible with existing
implementations, so were their votes really about completing that work
to remove ambiguity? If so, deprecating the prefix would not be a step
toward completing that.
But to my point. As the second note shows, part of the goal of some
votes is to disallow a network manager the ability to limit access or
visibility to some of their nodes. The IETF is not in the role of
designing networks, and limiting access and visibility is an operational
issue that the IETF doesn't get to decide.
The question was ambiguous. Individual interpretations of the outcome
drove YES votes for architecturally divergent goals, some of which are
not in the IETFs purview to decide.
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
I certainly agree that it's all about ambiguous addresses and
not about about reachability. And it's why I have to agree
with Keith that Site Local addresses are a bad idea, and why
ditching them is absolutely the right thing.
Keith Moore wrote:
My point was that there are topology locators that are only viable
within a scope defined by the local network manager.
yes, we know this. it's a bad idea, and we need to stop
pretending it's a legitimate thing to do. that way, when the
network manager does this, it's his fault when things break.
network managers do have legitimate needs that must be
respected. this is not one of them.