> The second is the side point I raised with Margaret: in the > general case of "things in specifications", removing something > from a specification does not mean that someone can still use > it. Deprecation protects such a usage, but removal does not. Scott's posting made a distinction between adding and removing features, lumping site-local deprecation into the "removing features" category. I echoed his terminology. I agree with you that there is a difference between simply removing a feature (which might cause serious backwards compatibility concerns, and could be quite irresponsible in some cases) and carefully deprecating a feature (while considering the affects on current implementations and preserving backwards compatibility). In the IPv6 site-local case, the decision was made to deprecate site-local addresses, and that is what we are working to do. The proposals currently on the table reserve the current site-local prefix, so that it will not be reallocated by IANA. Fred, I hope that this resolves your technical concern about this particular case, and I apologize for not making this distinction clear in my response to Scott. > That is actually not the > subject of either appeal, and should not enter into the discussion of > either appeal,... As far as I know, there is only one appeal currently open regarding this subject. Margaret