The IESG has reviewed the appeal by Tony Hain of the IPv6 Working Group chairs' declaration of consensus on the issue of site local addresses in the IPv6 address architecture. Tony's appeal requests that the declaration of consensus be overturned due to the ambiguity of the question asked. As is to be expected of a technical discussion where there are many opinions, the discussion of the site-local issue at the San Francisco IETF meeting went all over the map, with many unanswered questions. However, the question asked by the chairs, with clarification from the AD, was clear. "Does the group want to go away from site-local addressing, deprecate it, work out how to get it out, [or] does the group want to keep it and figure out what the right usage model is for it?" The clarifying statement was "Deprecate [...] means somewhere to the left of the 'limited use' model?" The spectrum of choices, including the 'limited use' model, had been presented during that same meeting. Although the group had decided to rule out the 'limited use' model (and presumably anything to the left of it as well) in Atlanta, nothing precludes new information from prompting a review of old decisions. The question posed on the list was more concise, simply "Should we deprecate IPv6 site-local unicast addressing?" This question is not ambiguous. The deprecation of site-local addresses in their current form has served a useful role in forcing the working group to recognize the problems that the original definition had and work to address them. The IESG finds nothing unusual about how the question was asked or how the working group has proceeded. There is strong consensus in the IESG that deprecation is the correct technical decision, but we have done our best to separate our technical preferences from the process issue in considering this appeal. In summary, the IESG upholds the chairs' and INT ADs' decisions. The IESG
