Subject: RE: Appeal to the IAB on the site-local issue

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 19:14:02 -0700

Harald,

> Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> But there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that the WG made a
> decision, and that the chairs were procedurally correct in
> recording that decision as the outcome of the meeting.

There many people, including some that actually _wrote_ the procedures,
that disagree with you. As of myself, I am not completely happy with the
way Tony has worded his appeal (although I do agree with it), which is
why I will file one on different grounds as soon as this one as been
ruled. Since it appears that there is a waiting list to file an appeal
on this matter, I am sure that we will be entertained for the next two
or three years to come.

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:59:37 -0400

Michel,

> that disagree with you.

This is FUD. If there are people that agree with Tony's appeal, let
them speak for themselves. In all the email on this thread (and the
many conversations I have had with folk), I have had a _very_ hard
time seeing anyone truly supporting Tony's appeal (with the exception
of kre, who posted specifically in support of it). Scott Bradner has
already posted separately clarifying his views.

And let's be very clear. Disagreeing with the decision to deprecate is
not the same thing as agreeing with Tony's appeal. His appeal is very
specific and focuses on a process question. One can disagree with the
the decision to deprecate and simultaneously disagree with the
appeal. Not to beat an obvious point, one can't just appeal a decision
because one doesn't like it, one has to have specific reasons (as
listed in 2026). 

> As of myself, I am not completely happy with the

You might want to consult RFC 2026. There is a statute of limitations
with regards to appeals:

>    All appeals must be initiated within two months of the public
>    knowledge of the action or decision to be challenged.

If you are waiting to see the results of the current appeal before
filing yet another one, you'd better have grounds other than issues
with the original actions some months ago. A statute of limitations is
apparently a necessary thing (unfortunately), precisely to prevent
issues from dragging out over "the next two or three years to come".

Popping up a level, there's a more basic thing that I fail to
understand about this appeal. If the decision to deprecate was so
wrong and flawed, how does one explain that the community seems to
support it? From some of Tony's notes, one would think that process
ran amok in this case with a horrible end result that goes against the
will of the WG. But I don't see the community agreeing with that view.
E.g., see a recent note from the IPv6 chairs on the subject
(appended).  From it, it is clear that there is strong community
support to deprecate SLs. Thus, the idea that the consensus call was
fatally flawed, that the community doesn't support the decision and
that we consequently somehow need to reset the clock and pretend that
the last 6 months didn't happen and that we must start the entire
conversation over about what to do with SLs just doesn't make any
sense to me.

Thomas

From: Bob Hinden & Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 10:55:33 -0700
Subject: Results of Poll

The results of the poll (appended below) started by the chairs in early 
August to get more feed back from the working about how to deprecate 
site-local are as follows:

    Preference A   32     45%
    Preference B   31     44%
    Preference C    8     11%
    --------------------------
    Total Votes    71    100%

The raw votes are available at:

     http://people.nokia.net/~hinden/ipv6-choices.html

If we missed your preference or got it wrong, please let us know.

There are a few conclusions that can be seen in this poll.

Only 11% of the people responding wanted to defer the deprecation of 
site-local until an alternative was deployed.  89% wanted to deprecate 
prior to an alternative being standardized or at the same time an 
alternative was standardized.

There was not a consensus about tieing the deprecation of site-local to 
defining an alternative or do the deprecation before defining an 
alternative.  The working group is closely split on this.  Even combing 
preferences B & C (i.e., 55%) does not form a consensus.

Based on this, the chairs will plan to move the deprecation document and 
the local addressing specification forward at approximately the same time, 
but will not do anything to officially tie them together.

Bob Hinden / Brian Haberman
IPv6 w.g. chairs

>Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 11:06:55 -0700
>To: [email-masked]
>From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Moving forward on Site-Local and Local Addressing
>Cc: [email-masked]
>
>[IPv6 working group chair hat on]
>
>I think the working group has been making good progress on replacing 
>site-local addresses and wanted to get feed back from the working group on 
>how we should move forward.  This is not intended to directly relate to 
>the ongoing appeal of the working groups decision to deprecate the usage 
>site-local addresses, but to get feedback on how to proceed.  I think it 
>is very important that we move forward on this issue and not rehash what 
>has happened in the past.
>
>We now have a combined local addressing requirements document 
><draft-hain-templin-ipv6-limitedrange-00.txt>, a specific alternative to 
>site-local addresses draft <draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-02.txt> 
>(accepted as a working group item at the Vienna IETF), and will soon have 
>a draft describing why site-local addresses are being deprecated and doing 
>the formal deprecation (authors identified and outline discussed at the 
>Vienna IETF).  Note that all of these documents will proceed through the 
>normal working group and IETF processes of last calls and review.
>
>I think legitimate questions have been raised about how the working group 
>should go about deprecating site-local addresses given their maturity in 
>the current specifications and use in deployed products.  Specifically 
>should they be deprecated independently from having an alternative 
>solution available, at the same time an alternative is available, or 
>sometime after an alternative is available.  A forth alternative is to not 
>replace site-local addresses in any form, but I think the working group 
>has made it clear that this is not a reasonable alternative.
>
>I would like to hear from the working group on how we should proceed.  I 
>think the choices are:
>
>A) Deprecate Site-Local addresses independently from having an alternative 
>solution available.  This would mean that the working group should treat 
>the deprecation, and requirements and solution documents outlined above 
>independently from each other.  If there was no consensus on an 
>alternative a replacement would not happen.
>
>B) Deprecate Site-Local addresses at the same time as a alternative 
>solution is agreed to.  This would mean advancing both documents at the 
>same time and making them include normative references to each other to 
>insure that they were published at the same time.  This would result in 
>the deprecation only happening if a consensus was reached on an alternative.
>
>C) Deprecate Site-Local addresses after an alternative is defined, 
>standardized, and in operational practice.  This would mean not advancing 
>a deprecation document until there was operational evidence that the 
>alternative was working and shown to be an improvement over Site-Local 
>addresses.
>
>Note:  In the above choices "Deprecate Site-Local addresses" means 
>publishing an RFC that does the formal deprecation.
>
>Please respond to the list with your preference, or if there is an 
>alternative approach that is an improvement from the ones I outlined.  I 
>hope that many of you will respond.
>
>Thanks,
>Bob

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 06:58:46 -0500

Speaking as an outsider on this particular topic...

Is there any reason why these appeals should be single-threaded?

As much fun as it might be to continue to rotate this topic on a spit,
we've been discussing whether we actually made this decision or not
for six months. Continuing to discuss it for another two or three
years is just pathological. If it was the WRONG decision, deciding
that we made the decision, and letting the wrongness blossom/fester
and become evident to all, would be an improvement.

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>

> _______________________________________________
> This message was passed through [email-masked],
which is a sublist of [email-masked]. Not all messages are passed.
Decisions on what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML
Administrator ([email-masked]).

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:04:50 -0700

Thomas Narten wrote:
> ...
> support it?

You are listening to a very limited subset of the 'community'. I have had
several questions from fortune 500 network managers as to 'what now?' They
plan to roll out IPv6 with addresses that are in either the FEC0 range
anyway, or are trusting that the proposed replacement FC00 will be finalized
soon.

> From some of Tony's notes, one would think that process
> support to deprecate SLs.

Take the biased questions in context, all choices started with 'Deprecate
Site-Local ...' You can get any answer you want as long as you get to frame
the question and later define what the answer means.

Tony

>  Thus, the idea that the consensus call was

---

From: "Eugene M. Kim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:52:05 -0700

>anyway, or are trusting that the proposed replacement FC00 will be finalized

With all due respect, it seems that it would be beneficial for both 
camps (for and against SL) to hear, even now, the real concerns directly 
from the operation people and to let them participate in the decision 
themselves.  I'm afraid isn't particularly effective nor or appealing 
just to claim `There are many people who are silent now but have their 
stake in SL and would be jeopardized by this decision,' when the 
discussion and decision processes have been open to the public.  I'm 
sure that the IAB and the IESG would also be happy to hear opinions 
directly from them, because that will give a clearer and broader view.

It'd be a totally different story though, if you officially represented 
a group of operation people when you opposed SL deprecation.  I 
apologize if this was indeed the case.

Regards,
Eugene

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:18:39 -0400 (EDT)

note that this survey was done *after* the decision was announced
as a done deal - I, for one, took that into account when I responded

----

    Preference A   32     45%
    Preference B   31     44%
    Preference C    8     11%

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:30:55 +0200

Eugene M. Kim wrote:

<snip>

|
| With all due respect, it seems that it would be beneficial for both
| camps (for and against SL) to hear, even now, the real concerns directly
| from the operation people and to let them participate in the decision
| themselves. ... <snip>

Been there. Done that. Didn't work. This vast Moral Majority of the
Site-Locals either don't exist or live entierly behind NATs or other
boxes which prevent them from receiving the call to arms to participate
in the debate. ;-)

	Cheers Leif

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:43:55 -0400

> anyway, or are trusting that the proposed replacement FC00 will be finalized

maybe those people are being fed bad information.  the question is, by whom?

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:23:55 -0500

Thus spake "Leif Johansson" <[email-masked]>
> boxes which prevent them from receiving the call to arms to participate

Or we all just got sick of the bickering and accepted defeat (unlike Tony).

For the record, I can't support deprecating site locals until we have
something else approved to replace them -- at which point I say good
riddance.  There are several drafts in the WG to that end which haven't
gained any momentum thus far.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:40:38 -0700

> gained any momentum thus far.

And this is why the appeal is in my opinion untimely.  The working group 
has not yet been given a chance to provide any documentation on that 
"What next?" question Tony asked.  For the IESG or the IAB to interfere 
at this stage would be micromanagement.

But here we are.  Tony has decided to push an appeal of a "vote", and 
not even one that generated a document.  That the appeal has even gotten 
this far seems is a flaw in the process.

Had the IESG been able to disallow the appeal, simply on this basis, 
then perhaps the working group could actually provide documents about 
which we could argue over technical merit.  As it stands, I predict yet 
another round of appeals once IETF last call closes, and the document is 
reviewed by the IESG.

Welcome to Court TV, IETF style.

Eliot

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:20:25 -0400

> something else approved to replace them 

replace them for what purpose?   different people wanted site locals for
different purposes.  some of those purposes are dubious.  others inherently
cause harm.

we're not going to find a single solution that satisfies all of the
purposes for which people thought site-locals were a good idea.
and that is a good thing.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:55:04 -0700

At 02:30 PM 10/10/2003, Leif Johansson wrote:
>>With all due respect, it seems that it would be beneficial for both camps 
>>(for and against SL) to hear, even now, the real concerns directly from 
>>the operation people and to let them participate in the decision 
>>themselves. ... <snip>
>
>Site-Locals either don't exist or live entierly behind NATs or other boxes 
>which prevent them from receiving the call to arms to participate in the 
>debate. ;-)

Let's at least try to be fair and realistic. There is a fairly large and 
vocal camp from tier 1 and tier 2 operators in the IETF which presumes that 
the needs of a backbone service provider are the only needs that are 
relevant in any network and go around blasting anything they don't need as 
"clueless". But not all tier 1/2 operators are represented or choose to 
speak publicly, and not all networks are tier 1/2 networks. I have a fairly 
long history of sitting in the room with people from certain tier 1/2 
operators who will tell me at dinner or in the hallway what they think 
about this or that, but are precluded from speaking for themselves publicly 
by the policy or culture of their employers. I'm not naming names, because 
that would be inappropriate (if they can't/won't speak for themselves 
because their employer doesn't want to tip a business hand, who am I to tip 
it for them?). But I guarantee you that they are present, and they don't 
necessarily agree with the vocal operators.

When it comes to tertiary operators and enterprises, let's face it. They're 
vastly under-represented, and perhaps not at all represented. If they were 
represented as completely as the Tier 1/2 operators are, we would routinely 
have meetings with multiples of 10K attendees. They don't come to IETF 
meetings. They read about them in Network World and Computer Week, they 
tell their vendors what they are willing to buy, and their vendors come 
talk about the features smaller operators and enterprises are asking for. 
The vendors take a beating from the operational elite, who tell us

  - we have no clue how to run a network
  - we have no idea what features a network needs
  - there is no deployed (pick your protocol that is perhaps inappropriate in
    a Tier 1 backbone) in the whole wide world
  - Specifically, there is no operational deployment of the diffserv
    architecture (having heard this extensively from the gentleman from 
Telstra,
    I wonder if he ever talks to the gentleman from Comindico that I spoke 
with
    last week; they seem to live on different planets)
  - That everything we produce and talk about is what we want to sell, not
    what the tier 1/2 operators or anybody else wants to buy.
  - That whatever we say is inherently invalid because we are vendors.

Interesting. Do we do these things for our health? Do we go generate 
features and then try to sell them to people? Do we keep beat our heads 
against the wall for a decade or more while there is no market and all 
problems are trivially solved using other technologies?

Are we that idiotic?

You know, I'd like to see a little more respect for people, and for the 
reports they make. Yes, it would be much better if operational staff from 
each of the Fortune 500 companies and larger tertiary operators came to the 
IETF and spoke for themselves. They don't, and that doesn't make their 
opinions or requirements irrelevant.

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 08:12:37 +0200

| You know, I'd like to see a little more respect for people, and for the
| reports they make. Yes, it would be much better if operational staff
| from each of the Fortune 500 companies and larger tertiary operators
| came to the IETF and spoke for themselves. They don't, and that doesn't
| make their opinions or requirements irrelevant.

I do (sort of) apologize for the tone of my email but I simply don't
understand how the debate in the IETF will survive the trend to replace
technical argument with "My Fortune 500 customers tell me foo and thus
foo it must be.". Please tell me how that is fundamentally different
from voting based on (in some way) market share.

Don't take me wrong, I am not an air-headed academic who fails to
understand the importance of beeing able to sell the solutions to
people who are willing to pay for them.

	Cheers Leif

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 08:43:57 +0200

|
| Don't take me wrong, I am not an air-headed academic who fails to
| understand the importance of beeing able to sell the solutions to
| people who are willing to pay for them.

Just to be very clear on this: I don't believe I have seen anyone
in the SL debate who presented an 'academic' argument without insight
into the commercial realities facing vendors. Even the most die-hard
opponents of SL I believe understand this. The failure to accept the
Furtune-500 argument is not the same as not understanding it.

	Cheers Leif

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:24:19 +0200

I believe that the best outcome for the IETF, and for its constituency,
including enterprise network operators, is for the IPv6 WG to get on with
what it's doing (documenting the deprecation of site-local, and developing
alternatives). I believe the worst outcome for the IETF would be to waste the 
time of busy people (and I'm sadly aware that this message will go to several
thousand people) over a consensus call that was not even about a document
but just a decision in principle. Personally I see no abuse of process in
either the face to face consensus call or the subsequent email poll; the
fact that the questions asked had some degree of ambiguity is simply a result
of the complexity involved. I recommend that the IAB deals with this appeal
as quickly as possible, and avoids future time wasting by constructing a
response that makes further appeals on the same topic pointless.

Personally, this is my last message on this thread and I won't be reading
it again either. I have work to do.

   Brian

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

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