The word "deprecating" has a quite precise meaning in standards writing, which is not the same as "removing". Rather than debating this cross-posted on several lists, why don't people watch out for draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-01.txt which will appear in a few days, and see if they agree with the way it's written? And then debate it on the relevant list? Brian Margaret.Wasserman@nokia.com wrote: > > Hi Fred, > > > So in the general case I don't see a problem with deprecating > > things under the right circumstances, but I do have a problem with > > removing them outright. Deprecation doesn't prevent people from using > > them, but outright removal can be dangerous. And in this case, the > > assertion that one can still use the address prefix in a local manner > > is simply incorrect; it can be assigned at the whim of IANA, and > > network administrations need to plan accordingly. > > Actually, we are being very careful about this in the deprecation > of IPv6 site-local addressing. Christian Huitema and Brian Carpenter > have co-authored a very carefully written deprecation document that > makes it clear how these addresses should be treated to avoid problems > with existing site-local implementations. And, we are planning to > instruct IANA not to return these addresses to the regular allocation > pool. > > Margaret > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM NEW ADDRESS <brc@zurich.ibm.com> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK