Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to
address-policy-wg@ripe.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
address-policy-wg-owner@ripe.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
(Hans Petter Holen)
2. Re: [ipv6-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
(Benedikt Stockebrand)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:16:51 +0100
From: Hans Petter Holen <hph@oslo.net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy
mailing lists]
To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Message-ID: <54648513.1020201@oslo.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
On 12.11.14, 08.32, Aleksi Suhonen wrote:
> In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about
> address policy.
According to the charter - address policy is outside the charter of the
IPv6 wg.
See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ipv6
--
Hans Petter Holen
Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:33:47 +0000
From: Benedikt Stockebrand <bs@stepladder-it.com>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [ipv6-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address
policy mailing lists]
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Cc: Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2012@ssd.axu.tm>,
"address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>,
"ipv6-wg@ripe.net IPv6" <ipv6-wg@ripe.net>
Message-ID: <87a93vl790.fsf@stepladder-it.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
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/
End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 17
*************************************************