From: Mark Townsley <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 9:39 AM To: Ray Bellis <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [homenet] homenet requirements on ISPs -- should write them down?
> > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Ray Bellis <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> On 28/04/2015 02:02, Tim Chown wrote: >> >>> > Something for the chairs to consider. None of the above should >>> > prevent existing work continuing, but it may be useful to document >>> > common understanding of what we¹re trying to achieve. >> >> It sounds like a fine idea to me, but I shall need to discuss with my >> co-chair and AD when I get back to the UK next week, not least to >> confirm whether it's in charter (and if not, whether the charter could >> be updated to accommodate this). > > Ray and I have met up since his return, but haven't had a chance to talk about > this. > > Let me ask: Would something like this fit better in v6ops? My attitude is to write the document and then find the home for it. Our ADs won¹t let good work go undone for bureaucratic reasons; if no group is chartered to do it, they¹ll recharter one. I¹m fine with pointing v6ops at such a document and inviting discussion there, too. If there¹s interest, we could put it on the agenda for a v6ops meeting. On the other hand, it might be an even better discussion for a BCOP, discussed at a NOG. Then you¹ll get ISP input. Lee > > - Mark > >> >> Ray >> >> _______________________________________________ >> homenet mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list > [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
