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/[email protected]/

[ipv6-wg] comments on Y.Pv6RefModel

Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] comments on Y.Pv6RefModel
Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] comments on Y.Pv6RefModel

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Jim Reid jim at rfc1035.com
Fri May 25 15:54:42 CEST 2018

On 25 May 2018, at 12:49, Antonio Prado via ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> i'd prefer to continue stressing the technical aspects of Y.Pv6RefModel,
> instead of complaining about ITU's relevance in the topic.

Antonio, while it’s important to talk about the technical aspects of Y.IPv6RefModel -- please tell the WG what you think about it! -- we should not lose sight of the layer 9+ aspects. These are important too.

SG20 didn’t volunteer to bring this document to the WG. They were made to do it. If those interventions in Geneva hadn’t happened, we probably wouldn’t have seen this document until it finally got published as a Recommendation.

Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] comments on Y.Pv6RefModel
Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] comments on Y.Pv6RefModel

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ ipv6-wg Archives ]