Hi Scott, Speaking only for myself, I would like to address a couple of the points that you have made. > 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. First, I disagree with your basic premise. We don't make any distinction between these cases, but if we did, all other things being equal, I think it should be harder to add a new feature to a specification than to take one out. Removing a feature from a specification doesn't even prevent people from using it, whereas adding a feature requires people to implement new code to be compliant with the specification. But, regardless of our differing opinions on this theoretical point, I am not sure how it applies to this situation. Although a prefix for site-local addressing was set aside in the IPv6 Address Architecture (a PS RFC), the entire specification for the concept of site-local addressing, including how you would actually use these addresses, was only ever documented in the IPv6 Scoped Addressing Architecture I-D. At the time that this decision was made by the WG, the latest version of that I-D had expired. Various versions of the I-D had been considered by the WG for years, but we had never reached rough consensus to send this I-D to the IESG for publication. > 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'm not sure where this is coming from. You quoted the consensus finding later in your message: > > 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. In other words, we found that there was consensus to deprecate AND replace site-locals, not that there was a lack of consensus to keep them. In response to your appended letter: > 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" The actual ratio of YES to NO responses to this poll was closer to 3/4. Also, the poll was not the only tool that the WG chairs (I was one of them at the time) used to determine the consensus of the WG. There was considerable discussion regarding this issue -- in the WG meeting and on the list. This included a fairly large number of people who gave conditional replies on the list, or who clarified their meeting postion on the list along the lines of: (1) I do not think we should deprecate site-local unless/until we replace them, or (2) Although I think that we should deprecate site-locals, I also think that we need a replacement. The chairs consensus call was based on lengthy and careful consideration of all of the information contributed by the WG, not just on the results of the opinion poll. It is still my personal opinion that we correctly judged the consensus of the WG regarding this matter. Margaret