[iot-wg] Fwd: [ipv6-wg] Invitation to supply feedback on ITU draft Recommendation on IPv6 address planning for IoT
- Previous message (by thread): [iot-wg] Fwd: [ipv6-wg] Invitation to supply feedback on ITU draft Recommendation on IPv6 address planning for IoT
- Next message (by thread): [iot-wg] Fwd: [ipv6-wg] Invitation to supply feedback on ITU draft Recommendation on IPv6 address planning for IoT
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Michael J. Oghia
mike.oghia at gmail.com
Mon Mar 26 11:32:52 CEST 2018
Hi Kurt, You might want to follow up with Sander about this. Best, -Michael On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Kurt Baumann <kurt.baumann at switch.ch> wrote: > Hi all, > > > > Thank you very much for this mail – I would be interested in your Draft of > “Recommendation on IPv6 addressing planning for IoT”. > > We are pushing “Things – Things” Network strongly into SWITCHcommuity. > > Please let me know if this Draft would be available – many thanks for your > feedback. > > > > Best regards, > > Kurt > > > > > > > > *From: *iot-wg <iot-wg-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of "Michael J. Oghia" < > mike.oghia at gmail.com> > *Date: *Thursday, 22 March 2018 at 15:00 > *To: *Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> > *Cc: *"IoT List (RIPE)" <iot-wg at ripe.net> > *Subject: *Re: [iot-wg] Fwd: [ipv6-wg] Invitation to supply feedback on > ITU draft Recommendation on IPv6 address planning for IoT > > > > Hi Jim, > > > > You're right, and I was forwarding from my phone, so I didn't have the > chance to properly contextualize it. I agree with you, though. It's best to > keep the conversation in one place. I wanted to make sure this group knows > about it, though, since it relates to IoT in case someone isn't already > subscribed to the IPv6 list (which, as a reminder, anyone can do here > <https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/ripe-mailing-lists>). > > > Best, > > -Michael > > > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote: > > > > > On 22 Mar 2018, at 13:33, Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > This might be relevant to this list as well. > > Please keep the discussion of draft Recommendation Y.IPv6RefModel on the > IPv6 WG's list. It's of course perfectly fine to tell the IoT WG that that > discussion is taking place there. But it will be confusing if discussion of > that document takes place in two WGs. And it may also lead to needless > duplication/overlap. Let's not do that. > > It's also important that the IPv6 WG is the focus for this effort. There's > an elaborate choreography going on behind the scenes with liaison > statements and invitations flowing between SG20 and the IPv6 WG. If we > introduce this WG into that dance, it will create problems that are easily > avoided. SG20 expects to hear from our IPv6 WG about their draft > recommendation. If IoT gets involved, someone's going to have a lot of > explaining to do to our friends in Geneva: probably me. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/iot-wg/attachments/20180326/55d1fdca/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [iot-wg] Fwd: [ipv6-wg] Invitation to supply feedback on ITU draft Recommendation on IPv6 address planning for IoT
- Next message (by thread): [iot-wg] Fwd: [ipv6-wg] Invitation to supply feedback on ITU draft Recommendation on IPv6 address planning for IoT
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ iot-wg Archives ]