Subject: RE: Removing features

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:43:49 -0400

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
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:07:46 +0200

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

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 

NEW ADDRESS <[email-masked]> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK