I'd like to ask an interesting question that might help the IETF, but
not this debate unfortunately.
The meta question is how did we get into a state where some people have
very conflicting views on how well this topic was adjusted (discussed
for years vs. an hour at a IETF meeting in SF), and what can we do in
the future to not allow this process failure to happen again.
Without laying blame anywhere outside of a process failure - I detect
two opinions
1) The WG chairs feel this issue had drug on too long - and finally
reached consensus in SF
2) Some members of the WG feel that an uninformed decision was made in
SF because there wasn't enough time for debate
To be honest - I don't have a personal opinion, and frankly don't know
enough of the details to make a technical choice on which way this
debate should go. However what appears to be happening is there is an
accusation against our open philosophy inside the IETF.
So from participants, chairs, IESG - are there any lessons to be learned
here that should apply to other WG so that other WG don't have process
failures like this one ?
Bill
In message
<E320A8529CF07E4C967ECC2F380B0CF902335099(_at_)bsebe001(_dot_)americas(_dot_)nokia(_dot_)co
m>, Margaret(_dot_)Wasserman(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com writes:
Hi Scott,
But, for what it's worth, I do not think that there was sufficient
discussion of the option of deprecating SL addresses before the
consensus check was made. So, in a way, I think the consensus was
wrongly reached, even if I agree that consensus was reached.
If the San Francisco meeting was the only time/place that the IPv6 WG
had discussed the topic of what to do regarding IPv6 site-local
addressing, then I might agree with you.
What Margaret said. This is hardly the first time the issue has come
up; it's been debated for years.