[address-policy-wg] pointless meta-issue on WG renaming
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] pointless meta-issue on WG renaming
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] pointless meta-issue on WG renaming
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilhelm Boeddinghaus
wilhelm at boeddinghaus.de
Wed Nov 12 12:38:07 CET 2014
Am 12.11.2014 um 12:29 schrieb Jim Reid: > On 12 Nov 2014, at 11:20, Lu <h.lu at anytimechinese.com> wrote: > >> Should we re-name v6 group to address-technical in which different from address-policy? > No. > >> So one day we don't need a v7 group, and people with technical issue with v4 can discuss there as well. > RIPE can create a WG for IPv7 or whatever if and when the need arises. It can also kill a WG in the same way. [Provided Bijal is in the room. :-)] That's how we do things at RIPE. > > I support Jim Reid.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] pointless meta-issue on WG renaming
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] pointless meta-issue on WG renaming
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]