> On 26 May 2018, at 12:58, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ipv6-wg <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Agree, however, I will say that such statement should be jointly made by the > IETF and the RIRs communities (probably via the NRO).
Jordi, it doesn’t work like that. SG20 asked this WG to comment and it can only consider the response we send back. Replies from uninvited strangers (from SG20’s perspective) can’t be introduced at SG20 meetings. > I've copied the NRO Executive-Secretary, in case they aren't following this > thread, in order to seek their opinion on this. You didn’t need to do that. We can trust the NCC staff -- Chris and Marco are doing an excellent job here -- to decide how and when to escalate matters in the most appropriate way. FYI the IETF is aware Y.IPv6RefModel exists. Though they’ve not seen it AFAIK. Except maybe via this list. The IAB recently sent a Liaison Statement to SG20 about Y.IPv6RefMode. SG20 prepared a reply at their meeting 2-3 weeks ago essentially saying “we’ll send you the document for comment once it’s ready”: ie when/if there’s a version which satisfactorily addresses all the points and concerns made by this WG. *Please* focus here on the document and ITU’s latest improper attempt to meddle in IP addressing: something that’s completely out of scope for them. Try not to add more moving parts or lengthen/entangle the communication paths by introducing additional actors. At the moment, responding to Y.IPv6RefModel is this WG’s responsibility alone: nobody else’s.
