[iot-wg] Fwd: [ipv6-wg] Invitation to supply feedback on ITU draft Recommendation on IPv6 address planning for IoT

Hi Kurt,

You might want to follow up with Sander about this.

Best,
-Michael

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Kurt Baumann <kurt.baumann at switch.ch>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for this mail – I would be interested in your Draft of
> “Recommendation on IPv6 addressing planning for IoT”.
>
> We are pushing “Things – Things” Network strongly into SWITCHcommuity.
>
> Please let me know if this Draft would be available – many thanks for your
> feedback.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Kurt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *iot-wg <iot-wg-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of "Michael J. Oghia" <
> mike.oghia at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, 22 March 2018 at 15:00
> *To: *Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com>
> *Cc: *"IoT List (RIPE)" <iot-wg at ripe.net>
> *Subject: *Re: [iot-wg] Fwd: [ipv6-wg] Invitation to supply feedback on
> ITU draft Recommendation on IPv6 address planning for IoT
>
>
>
> Hi Jim,
>
>
>
> You're right, and I was forwarding from my phone, so I didn't have the
> chance to properly contextualize it. I agree with you, though. It's best to
> keep the conversation in one place. I wanted to make sure this group knows
> about it, though, since it relates to IoT in case someone isn't already
> subscribed to the IPv6 list (which, as a reminder, anyone can do here
> <https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/ripe-mailing-lists>).
>
>
> Best,
>
> -Michael
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 22 Mar 2018, at 13:33, Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > This might be relevant to this list as well.
>
> Please keep the discussion of draft Recommendation Y.IPv6RefModel on the
> IPv6 WG's list. It's of course perfectly fine to tell the IoT WG that that
> discussion is taking place there. But it will be confusing if discussion of
> that document takes place in two WGs. And it may also lead to needless
> duplication/overlap. Let's not do that.
>
> It's also important that the IPv6 WG is the focus for this effort. There's
> an elaborate choreography going on behind the scenes with liaison
> statements and invitations flowing between SG20 and the IPv6 WG. If we
> introduce this WG into that dance, it will create problems that are easily
> avoided. SG20 expects to hear from our IPv6 WG about their draft
> recommendation. If IoT gets involved, someone's going to have a lot of
> explaining to do to our friends in Geneva: probably me.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/iot-wg/attachments/20180326/55d1fdca/attachment.html>