[ipv6-wg] A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Kostas Zorbadelos
kzorba at otenet.gr
Thu Sep 24 17:05:48 CEST 2009
On Friday 04 September 2009 19:14:45 michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > Since this group isn't actually doing anything, I propose we: > > > > 1. Shut down this working group after the next RIPE meeting. > > 2. Move discussion of IPv6 issues to other working groups (since > > "IPv6 issues" will become "IP issues" very soon anyway). > > Given that we are just now moving into the time period when people will > be seriously deploying IPv6, I strongly oppose this move. > I agree with Michael about that. An IPv6 WG is useful. However there are good point in Shane's posts. > Instead, RIPE should promote this WG, and it would not hurt to clarify > its terms of reference. For instance, how does the RIPE IPv6 WG > differ from ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de ? > I read that "IPv6 discussion should naturally move to wider forums". Can anyone mention any such forums active right now? Is ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de such a forum? > It costs nothing to carry a mailing list with very low traffic, and even > if it only serves as an announcement list for the next three years, that > is atill a worthwhile use of the RIPE resources. > I see this as a more general issue. I find RIPE mailing lists under-utilized in general. Kostas
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]