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/ipv6-wg@ripe.net/
[ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Alex Semenyaka
alex.semenyaka at gmail.com
Thu Nov 13 17:09:29 CET 2014
Definitely +1 to Jen 2014-11-13 19:01 GMT+03:00 Alex Saroyan <alexsaroyan at gmail.com>: > +1 don't merge. > > Regards > /Alex Saroyan > > Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 01:53:21PM +0100, Wilfried Woeber wrote: > >> [...] > >> > 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 :-) > > > >Fully agree. And, to come back to where this whole thread started - while > >IPv6 WG doesn't *do* policy by charter, there are people in the IPv6 WG > >who are interested in IPv6 address policy, but do not regularily follow > >the AP WG list. Which is why Erik threw the ball over the fence "you > >might be interested in this, so here's a notification so you don't miss > it". > > > > > >And, speaking as a member of the IPv6 community, I do not think the idea > >to dismantle the IPv6 WG (or it's list) has much merit - there are still > >operational technical challenges to IPv6, and it's thus useful to have > >a WG focusing on these. AP will take care of addressing challenges (and > >if AP does policy things that do not work out operationally, they listen). > > > >Gert Doering > > -- some relevant hats > >-- > >have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > > >SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > >Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. > Grundner-Culemann > >D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > >Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > -- Alex Semenyaka -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20141113/5d3a1335/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]