Hi Jim,

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.