[ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2012 at ssd.axu.tm> wrote:
>> Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need
>> two different wg for addressing?

Because IPv6 WG is not for addressing. IPv6 is not 'IPv4 with bigger
address space'.

>the day we start treat IPv6 as normal
>> IP address is the day we really in a world of v6.

I have no objection to *this* statement, so I'd expect that all
discussions related to IPv[4,6] address policy are happening in this
mailing list,
while IPv6 WG discusses technical aspects of IPv6 deployment.

> In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about
> address policy.

Exactly.

>In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for
> IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness.

I strongly disagree.
Shall I read it as a proposal to shut down IPv6 WG as well? I'd object
to say the least.
There are a lot of topics to discuss on IPv6 WG which do not belong to
address policy.
Anyway, I'm surprised to see a discussion about shutting down a
mailing list happening in *another* mailing list.
If community feels like 'there is nothing to discuss in IPv6 WG
mailing list anymore' (which does not seem to be a case as I can see
from the replies to your message), it should be discussed there.

I'm adding ipv6-wg@ to Cc: so people are aware of this discussion,
however from my point of view we've seen enough support to keep IPv6
list untouched.


-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry