This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
apwg at c4inet.net
Sun Nov 9 18:35:47 CET 2014
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 04:06:34PM +0000, Lu wrote: >Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we >need two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 >as normal IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. It's a fair point, actually. IPv6 should no longer be treated as "special". Also, while there are "language-hygiene" efforts underway, should "address-policy" not be renamed to "resource-policy"? It would make clearer that it is no longer about just IP addresses (if it ever was). rgds, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]