+1 don't merge.

Regards
/Alex Saroyan

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

>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