Site-local debate (Re: objectivity vs. leadership)

Harald Tveit Alvestrand harald at
Fri Apr 25 23:38:56 CEST 2003


--On fredag, april 25, 2003 11:13:00 -0700 Aaron Falk <falk at> wrote:

> In fact, I find the lack of participation from both IESG and IAB
> members on the IETF list in general, and the IPv6 LL debate in
> particular, to be somewhat disheartening.  I think their opinions on
> the Internet architecture with respect to the LL issue are important
> and would like to know where they stand.

I've seen no LL debate at all - it's a site-local debate.
(Aaron - the correction should be S/LL/SL/, not the other way around :-)

> I am imagining why there are so few IESG and IAB voices in this LL
> debate and can come up with a few possible reasons, all depressing:
> 1. They are too busy reading documents to keep up with the IETF
>    list. -- Bad.
> 2. They feel that it is not their place to voice opinions and sway the
>    debate. -- Also bad, since their opinions are supposed to be
>    valuable and might drive the debate in interesting and useful
>    directions.  IETF members are not shrinking violets (bug & feature)
>    and will vociferously disagree with AD opinions.
> 3. They have made up their mind on the issue and feel the debate is a
>    waste of time. -- Also bad -- the community is speaking.

My take is a kind of 3.1 - They have found that the community has made up 
its mind to deprecate site-local, that this is the right decision, and that 
it's now all over but the shouting. They further think that the job of 
convincing the last few remaining site-local advocates to give up is better 
left to the community than to the IETF leadership..... that repeating their 
already clear positions on the technical issue is rather useless.

Other than Steve Deering, I have not seen any recent IESG or IAB member 
speak out in favour of site-local.


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list