Definitely +1 to Jen 2014-11-13 19:01 GMT+03:00 Alex Saroyan <alexsaroyan@gmail.com>:
+1 don't merge.
Regards /Alex Saroyan
Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
[...]
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
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
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 01:53:21PM +0100, Wilfried Woeber wrote: possibility 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