Hi I think some people are off topic here, all I said was we should not treat v4 and v6 differently, that's it. If there are people like to treat two protocols differently, you are free to express your view. But anyway, this is really not a topic for this mailing list anyway, should we stop here?(if anyone interested we can start at IPv6 wg there) On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:00 AM, <address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net> wrote:
Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to address-policy-wg@ripe.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net
You can reach the person managing the list at address-policy-wg-owner@ripe.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] (Hans Petter Holen) 2. Re: [ipv6-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] (Benedikt Stockebrand)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:16:51 +0100 From: Hans Petter Holen <hph@oslo.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Message-ID: <54648513.1020201@oslo.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
On 12.11.14, 08.32, Aleksi Suhonen wrote:
In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about address policy. According to the charter - address policy is outside the charter of the IPv6 wg.
See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ipv6
-- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:33:47 +0000 From: Benedikt Stockebrand <bs@stepladder-it.com> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [ipv6-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> Cc: Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2012@ssd.axu.tm>, "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, "ipv6-wg@ripe.net IPv6" <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> Message-ID: <87a93vl790.fsf@stepladder-it.com> Content-Type: text/plain
Hi folks,
Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2012@ssd.axu.tm> wrote: [...]
In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. [...] There are a lot of topics to discuss on IPv6 WG which do not belong to address policy.
I fully agree with Jen here.
If I take a look at last week's IPv6 WG session in London (agenda and video at https://ripe69.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ipv6-wg/) I don't see *anything* there actually related to address policy.
@Aleksi: Maybe you could explain *why* you "think that a separate mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness" at this point?
Anyway, I'm surprised to see a discussion about shutting down a mailing list happening in *another* mailing list. [...]
I also consider this approach rather rude, but I guess we should still try to keep such matters of style separate from the actual topic at hand.
In any case, discussion on shutting down the IPv6 WG mailing list obviously doesn't belong on the address policy WG list; it would be a decision to be made in the IPv6 working group.
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. If you want to see something similar (albeit "backwards") having happened in the past, take a look at the IETF V6OPS WG mailing list before they forked SUNSET4.
I'm adding ipv6-wg@ to Cc: so people are aware of this discussion,
Thank you, Jen!
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.
however from my point of view we've seen enough support to keep IPv6 list untouched.
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
-- Benedikt Stockebrand, Stepladder IT Training+Consulting Dipl.-Inform. http://www.stepladder-it.com/
Business Grade IPv6 --- Consulting, Training, Projects
BIVBlog---Benedikt's IT Video Blog: http://www.stepladder-it.com/bivblog/
End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 17 *************************************************
-- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.