I'd like to ask an interesting question that might help the IETF, but not this debate unfortunately. The meta question is how did we get into a state where some people have very conflicting views on how well this topic was adjusted (discussed for years vs. an hour at a IETF meeting in SF), and what can we do in the future to not allow this process failure to happen again. Without laying blame anywhere outside of a process failure - I detect two opinions 1) The WG chairs feel this issue had drug on too long - and finally reached consensus in SF 2) Some members of the WG feel that an uninformed decision was made in SF because there wasn't enough time for debate To be honest - I don't have a personal opinion, and frankly don't know enough of the details to make a technical choice on which way this debate should go. However what appears to be happening is there is an accusation against our open philosophy inside the IETF. So from participants, chairs, IESG - are there any lessons to be learned here that should apply to other WG so that other WG don't have process failures like this one ? Bill In message <E320A8529CF07E4C967ECC2F380B0CF902335099@bsebe001.americas.nokia.co m>, Margaret.Wasserman@nokia.com writes: > >Hi Scott, > >> But, for what it's worth, I do not think that there was sufficient >> discussion of the option of deprecating SL addresses before the >> consensus check was made. So, in a way, I think the consensus was >> wrongly reached, even if I agree that consensus was reached. > >If the San Francisco meeting was the only time/place that the IPv6 WG >had discussed the topic of what to do regarding IPv6 site-local >addressing, then I might agree with you. What Margaret said. This is hardly the first time the issue has come up; it's been debated for years.