Hi all,
Thank you very much for this mail – I would be interested in your Draft of “Recommendation on IPv6 addressing planning for IoT”.
We are pushing “Things – Things” Network strongly into SWITCHcommuity.
Please let me know if this Draft would be available – many thanks for your feedback.
Best regards,
Kurt
From:
iot-wg <iot-wg-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of "Michael J. Oghia" <mike.oghia@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 22 March 2018 at 15:00
To: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
Cc: "IoT List (RIPE)" <iot-wg@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [iot-wg] Fwd: [ipv6-wg] Invitation to supply feedback on ITU draft Recommendation on IPv6 address planning for IoT
You're right, and I was forwarding from my phone, so I didn't have the chance to properly contextualize it. I agree with you, though. It's best to keep the conversation
in one place. I wanted to make sure this group knows about it, though, since it relates to IoT in case someone isn't already subscribed to the IPv6 list (which, as a reminder, anyone can do
here).
Best,
-Michael
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2018, at 13:33, Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This might be relevant to this list as well.
Please keep the discussion of draft Recommendation Y.IPv6RefModel on the IPv6 WG's list. It's of course perfectly fine to tell the IoT WG that that discussion is taking place there. But it will be confusing if discussion of that document takes place in two WGs. And it may also lead to needless duplication/overlap. Let's not do that.
It's also important that the IPv6 WG is the focus for this effort. There's an elaborate choreography going on behind the scenes with liaison statements and invitations flowing between SG20 and the IPv6 WG. If we introduce this WG into that dance, it will create problems that are easily avoided. SG20 expects to hear from our IPv6 WG about their draft recommendation. If IoT gets involved, someone's going to have a lot of explaining to do to our friends in Geneva: probably me.