Hi again... "Niall O'Reilly" <[email protected]> writes:
> I agree with what Jim Reid posted on another list in response to the > same question. > > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2015-August/010523.html > > Specifically: "Put bluntly, if a discussion about any WG matter does > not take place on the mailing list, it simply didn't happen." now that was on the address policy WG list, which is pretty much diametrically opposite in nature to the IPv6 WG since it is all about policy, while the IPv6 WG isn't about policy at all. But Jims general reasoning is perfectly right. It's already difficult enough to keep things in the proper channel: So far we've had one discussion on AP WG list on disbanding the IPv6 WG list, and somehow I've got the feeling that this discussion started on the RIPE *NCC* members list while it concerns a RIPE (*non-NCC*) WG. It may be reasonable to have a "more realtime" channel for questions that aren't exactly relevant to the WG as such, like "Is it OK to use a /96 subnet prefix?"[1], but if this leads to making it impossible to keep track of the discussions on a topic in their entirety, then we'll have a real problem, because we'll have to sort out all kinds of misunderstandings and whatnot at the RIPE meetings. Cheers, Benedikt [1] See RFC 4291, Section 2.5.1, third paragraph... -- Benedikt Stockebrand, Stepladder IT Training+Consulting Dipl.-Inform. http://www.stepladder-it.com/ Business Grade IPv6 --- Consulting, Training, Projects BIVBlog---Benedikt's IT Video Blog: http://www.stepladder-it.com/bivblog/
