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.Nordmark@Sun.COM Subject: Re: state-of-art SLs Cc: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com In-Reply-To: <Roam.SIMC.2.0.6.1059396655.12753.nordmark@bebop.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