Thus spake "Christian Huitema" <huitema(_at_)windows(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com>
The specifics of the site local issue should be debated on the IPv6 WG
list, not on the global IETF list. Let me however respond to your point
regarding the quality of the debate, as I was the note taker during that
session.
Issues most often move to the IETF list when a vocal minority object to a
declaration of consensus by the WG chairs. If the WG chair would like to
reopen the debate, I'm sure everyone will move back there.
In short, it was not a hasty discussion, there was an informed debate,
opinions evolved during the discussion, and a consensus was reached. I
believe that if you had been in the room you would feel closer to that
consensus.
I haven't seen anyone argue in favor of site-local addressing for the
purposes of having explicitly scoped addresses, so you are correct in one
sense. What I am seeing is debate over private address space and NAT, which
many of us had expected site-locals to be useful for -- this email thread
(and the one on routing-discussion) belies any claims of consensus on that.
S
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking