[address-policy-wg] pointless meta-issue on WG renaming
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] pointless meta-issue on WG renaming
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] pointless meta-issue on WG renaming
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Lu
h.lu at anytimechinese.com
Wed Nov 12 12:39:42 CET 2014
"We" is a too board definition. Me as part of Ripe community are not agree with that "we" for example. Please provide valuable argument if you think my suggestion is " pointless". > On 2014年11月12日, at 上午11:29, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote: > >> On 12 Nov 2014, at 11:20, Lu <h.lu at anytimechinese.com> wrote: >> >> Should we re-name v6 group to address-technical in which different from address-policy? > > No. > >> So one day we don't need a v7 group, and people with technical issue with v4 can discuss there as well. > > RIPE can create a WG for IPv7 or whatever if and when the need arises. It can also kill a WG in the same way. [Provided Bijal is in the room. :-)] That's how we do things at RIPE. >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] pointless meta-issue on WG renaming
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] pointless meta-issue on WG renaming
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]