Scott,
I agree with your caution about "removal" 100% and that it requires a
much stronger consenus and test to execute removal, and do not want it
done in anyway but from a serious analysis of those consequences. I also
agree the issue has nothing to do with which side of the fence one sits
on the issue. It is a process issue and removal is a very serious
decision.
But I read all the discussions that lead up to the March 2003 meeting,
and was in that March 2003 meeting. It was one of the strongest
consensus moments I have seen that happened that day in that room in
that working group and was IMO over 3/4 of the attendees. And then the
follow up email to the meeting did not overturn that consenus or the
view of the Chairs, ADs, and no one jumped over the fence, who supported
the decision to my knowledge.
Hence, I agree with the bar you articulate for this case, but I for one
truly believe the IETF process was met to proceed with the
recommendation of the Chairs on this issue and is supported by strong
cosensus of the IETF direct participants.
Also the draft below URL provides a good initial discussion and
framework of the issue and also a means to reduce any pain caused by
this removal. It is not my endorsement of the draft at this time as a
qualification.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local
-01.txt
Other questions not related to this specific issue you articulated so
well are as follows for the future as input to you who knows far more
about this than I and I realize that completely:
1. Why did the WG agree to this consensus? An important question? I
will not comment on this in public.
2. Did the implementors who agreed understand the ramifications to code
base and were they participants? The answer is yes.
3. Were the needs of the market considered in the decision? I don't
think by all but do we ever use this bar? As I said to you once when
you were on the IESG consistency is imperative. The market is
reprsented by our participants. If participants are not here to support
the IETF they do not get heard. We have no way to trust one or a few to
represent an entire market other than present their individual view.
That may or may not influence the WG, it depends on the respect the
individual has with their peers I guess?
I will stop there.
Thanks for doing this and documenting the importance of "removal"
publicly it is a very important understanding we must know well before
we ever do removals. I do "feel" we had consenus as a note.
/jim
**************************************
"if it looks good, you'll see it;
if it sounds good, you'll hear it,
if it's marketed right, you'll buy it;
but...if it's real, you'll feel it."
Kid Rock
**************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Bradner [mailto:sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu]
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 10:17 AM
To: iab(_at_)iab(_dot_)org
Cc: iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
ipv6(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: re: Appeal to the IAB on the site-local issue
IAB,
Please consider this input for the IAB discussion on Tony's
appeal of the site local decision. This should not be
considered a separate appeal. (Which I would think would have
to start at the beginning with the working group chairs.)
I do not have an opinion on the particulars of Tony's appeal
since I was not at the meeting in question and only followed
the discussion on the mailing list. Nor is this an opinion
based on the technical question under discussion. (Although
I think some of the cures proposed to the site-local disease
are quite a bit worse than the disease itself.)
I would like to reiterate the concern I expressed on the
mailing list back in July - I think there may been a
violation of the IETF consensus process
in this case.
It is my opinion that there is a difference between a working
group deciding to adopt a technology and a working group
deciding to delete a technology from an existing IETF
specification. It is my opinion that the second case should
require a stronger demonstration of consensus to change since
the decision effects existing implementations, documentation,
text books etc.
But even without any need to show any extra level of
consensus I did not see that even a minimal level of rough
consensus was demonstrated to remove site local addresses.
The claim was made on the list that there was not consensus
to keep site local addresses, I think that is the wrong
question to ask - the proposal was to change a specification
after its publication there should have been a rough
consensus to remove the feature.
I did not see rough consensus to do so based on my monitoring
the list.
Scott
(this is the letter I sent back in July on the topic)
From sob Mon Jul 28 15:11:01 2003
To: Erik(_dot_)Nordmark(_at_)Sun(_dot_)COM
Subject: Re: state-of-art SLs
Cc: ipng(_at_)sunroof(_dot_)eng(_dot_)sun(_dot_)com
In-Reply-To:
<Roam(_dot_)SIMC(_dot_)2(_dot_)0(_dot_)6(_dot_)1059396655(_dot_)12753(_dot_)nordmark(_at_)bebop(_dot_)france>
The chairs have read all of the messages on the list, and based on
your considerable input, we have determined that the IPv6
WG does have
rough consensus to deprecate the usage of IPv6 site-local unicast
addressing AND to investigate alternative mechanisms for local
addressing and local access
. control.
humm - it is not all that often that we have said that 2/3 is
rough consensus in the IETF - in my exterience if 1/3 is not
in support then I would not claim consensus (even 6 grit) -
3/4 would be very rough indeed, 5/6 would be the mininum I
would say was "rough consensus"
just when does "rough consensus" faid out in this model?
Scott
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------