Re: [ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2012@ssd.axu.tm> wrote:
Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need two different wg for addressing?
Because IPv6 WG is not for addressing. IPv6 is not 'IPv4 with bigger address space'.
the day we start treat IPv6 as normal
IP address is the day we really in a world of v6.
I have no objection to *this* statement, so I'd expect that all discussions related to IPv[4,6] address policy are happening in this mailing list, while IPv6 WG discusses technical aspects of IPv6 deployment.
In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about address policy.
Exactly.
In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness.
I strongly disagree. Shall I read it as a proposal to shut down IPv6 WG as well? I'd object to say the least. There are a lot of topics to discuss on IPv6 WG which do not belong to address policy. Anyway, I'm surprised to see a discussion about shutting down a mailing list happening in *another* mailing list. If community feels like 'there is nothing to discuss in IPv6 WG mailing list anymore' (which does not seem to be a case as I can see from the replies to your message), it should be discussed there. I'm adding ipv6-wg@ to Cc: so people are aware of this discussion, however from my point of view we've seen enough support to keep IPv6 list untouched. -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
I agree (keep the IPv6 list untouched). Janos 2014.11.12. 20:21 keltezéssel, Jen Linkova írta:
I'm adding ipv6-wg@ to Cc: so people are aware of this discussion, however from my point of view we've seen enough support to keep IPv6 list untouched.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:31:33AM +0100, Janos Zsako wrote:
I agree (keep the IPv6 list untouched).
+1 Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski@polsl.pl
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/
[ trimmed everything, but ipv6-wg to keep the noise down ] Benedikt Stockebrand wrote:
Hi folks,
Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> writes: [...}
There are a lot of topics to discuss on IPv6 WG which do not belong to address policy.
I fully agree with Jen here.
So do I, strongly [...]
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 possibility 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 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 :-) [...]
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.
Just fwiw, all of the WGs' mailing lists are archived at the NCC's website
however from my point of view we've seen enough support to keep IPv6 list untouched.
I think so. Regards, Wilfried.
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
Hi, On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 01:53:21PM +0100, Wilfried Woeber wrote:
[...]
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 possibility 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 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
participants (6)
-
Benedikt Stockebrand -
Gert Doering -
Janos Zsako -
Jen Linkova -
Piotr Strzyzewski -
Wilfried Woeber