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] pointless meta-issue on WG renaming
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 14
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] pointless meta-issue on WG renaming
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Wed Nov 12 12:29:47 CET 2014
On 12 Nov 2014, at 11:20, Lu <h.lu at anytimechinese.com> wrote: > Should we re-name v6 group to address-technical in which different from address-policy? No. > So one day we don't need a v7 group, and people with technical issue with v4 can discuss there as well. RIPE can create a WG for IPv7 or whatever if and when the need arises. It can also kill a WG in the same way. [Provided Bijal is in the room. :-)] That's how we do things at RIPE.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 14
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] pointless meta-issue on WG renaming
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]