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

[ trimmed everything, but ipv6-wg to keep the noise down ]

Benedikt Stockebrand wrote:

> Hi folks,
> 
> Jen Linkova <furry13 at gmail.com> writes:
[...}
>>There are a lot of topics to discuss on IPv6 WG which do not belong to
>>address policy.
> 
> I fully agree with Jen here.  

So do I, strongly

[...]
> That said, if I was more involved with the address policy WG, I'd also
> expect to get involved if someone proposed to dump some other WG
> discussions into "my" mailing list.

Also donning my (past) DB-WG hat for a minute, there's always the possibility
to include an item like "input from other WGs or TFs" into the WG Meeting's
draft agenda. I have done that for years, and it worked quite OK (for the
most recent time in London, receiving input from Routing. So, *that*is no
reason in my books to talk about dismantling a useful and active WG.

No rocket science here, just a tad of looking across the fence :-)

[...]
> As far as I'm concerned, I do archive the address policy WG, but I don't
> generally follow it.  And I've got a strong impression that there are
> others who actively monitor the IPv6 list but don't even archive the
> address policy list.

Just fwiw, all of the WGs' mailing lists are archived at the NCC's website

>>however from my point of view we've seen enough support to keep IPv6
>>list untouched.

I think so.

Regards,
Wilfried.

> So do I.
> 
> \begin{wg-chair-mode}
> To deal with this question properly I suggest we follow a two step
> approach:
> 
> - First we see *on the IPv6 WG mailing list*---and please set the rcpt
>   accordingly---if there is some sort of consensus to propose a merger
>   with the address policy WG list.
> 
> - If that consensus is actually reached, then as the second step the
>   address policy WG should decide if they actually agree with our (IPv6)
>   discussions moving there.
> 
> I haven't had time to talk about this with Jen and Dave directly, but as
> far as I'm concerned if there is no further discussion on this on the
> IPv6 mailing list, I'll consider that as consensus with Jen's statement
> and assume the question settled.
> \end{wg-chair-mode}
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
>     Benedikt
>