[address-policy-wg] RE: [ppml] Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?

> If anyone want to discuss about the ULA-central ID, I encourage to
bring
> that discussion to the ipv6 WG mailing list, no need to create a new
one.
> For discussions about the policy proposal, use the corresponding RIR
mail
> exploder.

I don't know if Fred Baker's message on the IETF list made it to the RIR
lists, but he offers a single central discussion place for the central
ULA concept.

-----quoted from IETF list---------
In your email, you noted the disjoint nature of the RIRs and the need to
cross-post or whatever. Speaking as chair of IPv6 Operations
(v6ops at ops.ietf.org), I would invite you and all those interested in the
effort to use the v6ops list for the purpose and the v6ops working group
as a venue to do the work. If you would like, we can arrange a v6ops
interim meeting at the RIR meeting of your choice, or it could be
discussed in the currently-planned meeting in the third week of July in
Chicago.
---------------

So, now there is no longer any need to complain that the IETF is too
slow or that the RIRs need to work in parallel. Anyone can join the
v6ops list (instructions here
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/v6ops-charter.html ) and anyone can
propose how central ULAs could be made to work. And for those who wish
to meet face-to-face, there is an opportunity in Chicago in July.

Hopefully, the v6ops list will look at other alternatives such as using
AS numbers to define a block of addresses similar to the way GLOP
defined multicast addressing in RFC 3180
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3180.txt

--Michael Dillon