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